Jordan Times
Thursday, January 4, 1999
Senators deny deliberately withholding Illicit Profit Law
By Francesca Ciriaci
AMMAN — Senators have denied recent allegations by deputies that the Upper House has deliberately withheld in its drawers an anti-corruption draft law approved by the Lower House in 1992 and passed on to the Senate.
The draft, officially named “Law Against Illicit Profit,” required that officials at various levels, including ministers, deputies, and senators, submit a total assessment of their assets and properties upon appointment or election to their post.
Deputies intended that conflicts of interests, and cases in which officials or lawmakers may take advantage of their mandate to pursue their own business interests could be more easily revealed.
The draft also aimed at providing a tool to evaluate deputies and officials' illicit gains during their term in office, by comparing the assets declared at the beginning of their mandate with the declarations rendered upon leaving office.
But senators sitting in the 12th Parliament rejected the law, thus opening a procedural impasse that prompted 44 deputies to petition Lower House Speaker Abdul Hadi Majali earlier this month to pressure the 40-member, appointed Senate to release the anti-corruption draft.
“It is not true that the past or current Senate wanted to stop this draft by holding it indefinitely,” Senator Adeeb Halaseh told the Jordan Times on Wednesday.
“It is simply a procedural matter,” he affirmed.
Halaseh, whose 1957-1993 career as justice culminated in his appointments to the Court of Cassation and Higher Court of Justice, maintained that the Senate and the Lower House are equally hand-tied.
“The Constitution stipulates that, since the draft has been rejected by the Upper House, the only way to revive it is by convening a joint session,” Halaseh said.
Article 92 of the Constitution stipulates that “should either House reject twice any draft law and the other accept it, whether or not amended, both the Senate and the Chamber shall hold a joint meeting under the chairmanship of the President of the Senate to discuss the matters in dispute.
“Acceptance of the draft law shall be conditional upon the passing of a resolution by a two thirds of present members of both Houses.”
Halaseh conceded that other drafts have ended up rotting on the Senate's shelves for years, but rejected the notion that such occurrences indicate loopholes in the Constitution.
“I do not know what has prevented the Lower House speaker and the Upper House president from holding a joint session [on this draft until now], but obviously such sessions cannot be held every two days,” Halaseh told the Jordan Times.
Until now, joint sessions usually have been convened for ceremonial purposes.
Leftist Deputy Nazih Ammarin (Karak), who was one of the signatories of last week's petition to revive the draft, stressed that regulations to ensure transparency are crucial to the development of democracy.
“Nobody can talk of democracy when officials are not bound to a code of conduct,” Ammarin noted.
In most Western countries, separate codes of conduct require that parliamentarians and ministers declare their properties and provide relevant legal documents upon they are sworn in. Independent commissions assess the amount of officials' properties when they leave office, and in most cases require officials to divest of certain interests that may conflict with their positions.
Two ministers in the government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair resigned in December over a home loan that, although perfectly legal, was lent by an institution under investigation by the government and had not been declared upon the assumption of their powers.
In Jordan, Article 44 of the Constitution forbids ministers from “purchasing or leasing any government property, ...becoming a member of the board of directors of any company, taking part in any financial or commercial transaction or receiving a salary from any company.”
While most politicians and deputies have stressed the need for further legislation to obligate officials to declare their assets, opposition figures insist that would not be enough.
“The 1992 draft was inadequate and incomplete, because, although requiring officials to declare [their assets and income], it did not introduce any mechanism to hold them accountable,” said Toujan Faisal, a prominent opposition leader and Jordan's only woman deputy.
“Deputies say the law is in the Senate and the Constitution does not allow them to get it back. True. But they could still pass another anti-corruption law, a better one than the original draft, with another name,” she contended.
A combative Faisal, who held the Third District Circassian seat when the anti-corruption draft was submitted to the Upper House, gave her reading of the issue.
“I believe that senators rejected the draft because they wanted to be excluded from it,” she alleged.
“How much closer can you come to a confession of corruption?”