Judicial Review

At a time of profound change in Jordan, the need to appreciate and advance the role of the judiciary, not only vis-à-vis the other two branches of the state, the executive and the legislative, but also as guardian of individual liberties and economic freedoms, is more vital than ever. Realizing this, the Ministry of Justice has recently opened its doors to Jordan Business for a frank and open discussion about objectives, results and future plans.

Since its establishment in 1921, the Ministry of Justice in Jordan has set out to ensure fair game for the Kingdom’s citizens, championing values of egalitarianism and equal opportunity. Next to the legislative branch, the judiciary has had a massive role in helping to shape the country. Every day, judges in Jordan exercise their judicial powers, making some of the toughest decisions in the country that can have both negative and positive effects. Whether it is settling civil disputes or sentencing a criminal to prison or even death, Jordanian judges hold the lives of many citizens in the palm of their hands.

Within His Majesty King Abdullah II’s overall reform program, there has been significant political support for the importance of judiciary independence, as bolstered by the Constitution. That the Ministry of Justice is now headed by a high profile personality such as HE Sharif Al-Zubi has also helped.

Impressive as this may sound, when investigating just how qualified our nation’s judges are, the results may not be so appealing. Judges in Jordan are poorly paid, for which the Ministry’s talent base suffers. The minimum age is 27, which many feel is much too young to have acquired the experience an effective judge needs. Furthermore, courts are administrative jungles, where documents can go missing. However, of all the problems the judicial system faces today, perhaps the greatest has been the poor qualifications of judges.

Between 2000 and 2007, 441 judges have been assigned positions. Only eight graduated from Jordanian universities with the highest certification of “excellence,” representing a mere 2% of the total number of judges appointed during these years. The overwhelming majority received a certification of “good” or “satisfactory,” representing 37% and 54%, respectively. Only 169 attended foreign universities, predominantly in neighboring Arab countries.

Without a doubt, judicial reform in Jordan lies in improving both the courts system, including its basic infrastructure and administration, as well as training judges. An all-encompassing plan for reform requires making the legal system more effective by ultimately enhancing the role of the Ministry of Justice, simplifying legal procedures and strengthening the overall enforcement of law and order. However, with the current system sporadically influenced by the country’s political spheres, the heart of reform is personified in the need to shift the existing paradigm towards stronger judicial integrity and independence. Defining the problems is one thing, coming up with an actual plan is quite another.

The new Judicial Upgrading Strategy (JUST), presented this year by the Minister of Justice, HE Sharif Al-Zubi, is a plan to reform the judicial system into one where judges are of the highest caliber. From computerizing the system, to placing mechanisms that ensure judicial independence, as well as team-building exercises and social networking for ministry employees, the new strategy is looking to redefine the system and environment in the next few years. Recently, Jordan Business sat down with HE Sharif Al-Zubi to discuss the strategy and what problems it hopes to solve.
JB: How successful have the case management technological changes been in bringing long-running cases to a close, as well as in allowing both the public and the legal profession easier access to case files?
SZ: The computerization process has so far been very successful, but is not yet complete. We aim to complete the computerization of most of the courts by the end of this year, and all of the courts in Jordan will be fully computerized and interconnected by March 2008. However, this is not enough. We are introducing interactivity with users and lawyers, whereby attorneys can access their cases electronically, submit and check documents, inspect their schedule, and we can even send them messages through SMS. This will be the second phase of our computerization plans, with some of these services being introduced by the end of the year.This new system creates a great deal of efficiency. Sometimes documents even get lost, so now files will no longer have to move physically between courts but rather electronically. We are studying how to archive entire cases, and we hope to introduce such a system some time next year. We will reach that stage where we will have a paperless system; “e-courts,” if you like.

How long this will take is not certain, but I would like to target five years. For that to happen, we will need all the assistance we can get, especially from the users. E-government doesn’t work if the users are not ready. By and large, I think they will be, though we need to work with them because an e-court is not a one-sided project. The Bar Association has been one of our closest partners, and we have a first-class relationship with them and their members. It’s a relationship we aim to maintain and keep in mind when making the transition towards an electronic system.

JB: What role are USAID and other donors now playing in relation to judicial reform?
SZ: We have many partners and donors active in this loop, and USAID has been critical and crucial in developing our strategy. Its four-year program, which started in 2004, will be coming to an end in 2008. USAID has done tremendous work, mainly in the computerization field, as well as in introducing case management system and a mediation regime to our courts.

Our relationship with donors goes beyond USAID to include the EU, UNDP, as well as the Danish and Swiss governments - all working with us in a variety of capacities. Justice is a hot issue, and you can never refuse the assistance of experienced partners and what they have to contribute to building the system. For that, we are extremely grateful to all our partners. However, the end result depends on us, as we are on the receiving end. We have to manage and maintain these programs. You need to be proactive and not reactive.

JB: What is the government’s position regarding the Judicial Council?
SZ: The Judicial Council is the main body responsible for representing the needs of our judges, and it has the full legal power to look after those needs; from appointment and training, to meeting judges’ travel and retirement requirements. It is a completely independent council where we, as the Ministry of Justice, only coordinate with them. No part of the government is allowed to interfere with their operations. My personal role does not go beyond nominating judges. This responsibility I would like to see ceded to a council of senior judges.
JB: Is there scope in the ministry’s budget for judicial training, particularly in the following fields: foreign languages, computer literacy, international issues (especially trade law, intellectual property, and human rights) as well as conference attendance?
SZ: Yes there is, and plans have already been implemented with a focus on continuous education, foreign language training, as well as specialization in such areas as intellectual property, human rights and children’s rights just to name a few. In 2006, 133 training seminars were held for judges and administrative staff. This figure is expected to top 150 in 2007. In fact, each judge must attend a minimum number of courses per year; some are mandatory while others are elective.

In all of this, it is worth emphasizing that the entire ministry consumes less than 1% of the government’s budget, which is in line with international standards. I would like to keep it this way. The political will is definitely present, and there is support from the King concerning judicial issues. Whether it’s a speech in Parliament or during any other official occasion, the King has spoken adamantly about judicial issues such as enhancing independence, the quality of our judges and the judicial mechanisms that uphold the system.

So we have that political support, but we also know that there are constraints and there is pressure to tighten our belts as a government. However, if we remain at 1% we should be fine. Of course, we are always in need of more money and this is where donors can be a big help to our cause.

JB: Has any thought been given to increasing the age and qualification requirements for junior judges or are you happy with the standard as it is?
SZ: No, I’m not at all happy with the current standards. The minimum age is 27 and if you want my personal opinion, I believe it’s way too young. I would like to see that increase maybe to 30 as a minimum. As for admission requirements, we have put in place more stringent prerequsites for law students, including a minimum 70% Tawjihi pass rate, up from 55% previously. Becoming a judge requires an undergraduate certification of “good” and a Tawjihi pass rate of 75%.

JB: A related issue is judicial pay, which is a disincentive to some highly-skilled legal professionals in the private sector. Is there any way of increasing salaries for Jordan’s highest judicial officers?
SZ: This has to be done and we are planning on doing it. There is no way that this extremely low salary level can continue. If we are looking for the best judges with the highest qualifications, we have to give them something substantial in return.

You want to ensure a dignified life for these judges. Starting salaries for judges today are about JD600 to JD700, which in 21st century Jordan is nothing. We have sent a proposal to the Ministry of Finance to increase the scale by over 100%, and there is government support for it. I’m not just asking for it, I’m insisting on it. We have also asked for health insurance along with other various incentives. Our aim is to take care of our judges.

JB: There have been calls for the establishment of a constitutional court for quite some time, but with very little action to date. Do you support the idea or not?
SZ: I’m all for it. There should be a specialized constitutional court that has the ability to look into the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of rules and regulations. It is, of course, a debatable issue, and it’s not in our current plans as I have other priorities that are more urgent. Meanwhile, all judges in Jordan are entitled to look into the constitutionality of laws.

JB: Do you support the existence of Jordan’s security courts as well as its separate religious court system? Such a model further erodes judicial power and independence and also undermines legal uniformity.
SZ: I am generally against the concept of special courts. It is a parallel justice system that I am not a strong believer in. We should be focusing on improving and strengthening the judicial system. Now, when I say “special courts” there are some differences. For example, I have no problem with the customs court as its judges are part of the judicial system. In contrast, I have little support for the concept of a state security court. The regional situation or the political environment is not, in my opinion, an excuse to have a state security court. So it isn’t wrong to revisit the issue of having such a court in our country in the near future.

Religious courts are also completely different. They are constitutional courts, which are restricted to family affairs, and of which I am a proponent. These are also courts that are specialized in various judicial realms such as Sharia law or representing non-Muslim minorities.
JB: Judicial appointment and dismissal (or requests to resign) are contentious and although there is some independence provided, judges still point out that the executive branch in general and Ministry of Justice in particular are too closely involved. Do you support the creation of an independent, judge-based body for appointment or not?
SZ: I fully support the creation of such a body, and this is what we are working on currently. This is also why we are making the prerequisite qualifications for becoming a judge more stringent. At the end of the day, we have a problem with wasta (nepotism) and accountability. The former is not something that is easy to change in our society so I can’t reinvent the wheel, but I can control how qualified a person is before they become a judge.
Honor Crimes
The Jordanian judicial system always falls under the spotlight in the international arena when it comes to controversial issues such as honor crimes and human rights abuses. According to Reem Abu Hassan, a senior advisor at the Ministry of Justice, there have been many initiatives by civil society organizations and the government to deal with honor killings, but these have so far failed. This includes the campaign to collect one million signatures to abolish Article 340 of the Penal Code. This is an issue that goes back to the punishment dealt out by the courts, and the source of the conflict was not Article 340 but the gender-neutral provision, Article 98, which provides for lenient sentences when it comes to crimes committed in a fit of rage. There is no label of “honor killings” in the Penal Code itself, but these killings have been categorized instead as crimes committed in a fit of rage. “We found that the problem was that the public prosecutors had weak cases and thus an inability to convince a court that it was, in fact, premeditated murder,” Abu Hassan stated. She went on to add, “So now the new approach we are using at the Ministry of Justice is to strengthen the investigation process of all homicide cases, and not just for honor killings, by providing everything the public prosecutor needs to build a solid case.” This includes everything, from being able to investigate the crime scene first (and not by the police), to having access to a car and accommodation that allow them to travel to the crime scene wherever it may be in the country. These are all administrative facilities that are requirements for the prosecutor to perform their job efficiently and present the case properly.

The Future Is Now
Without a doubt the judicial system is bombarded with many problems, and if the new strategy is to succeed there are many obstacles to overcome. A fundamental pillar to any successful state is an independent judicial system - one that knows no interference from political powers, is corruption free, and that is efficient and effective simultaneously. It is a system that should not remain in conventional and rigid hands, but rather have the fluidity it needs to change and evolve with time. It is also a system where changes via the Ministry of Justice can quickly be recognized and realized on the ground, perhaps even quicker than those changes that occur through the legislative branch. Laws, sentences, and judgments are carried out on a daily basis and their effect is immediate.

Whether the ministry’s new strategy will yield effective results remains to be seen. For now, one thing is certain: without the necessary changes being made today, as part of the comprehensive reform movement, the judicial system will continue to hinder the country’s development, and massively under-qualified judges will become individuals with too much power. The inherent flaws of the current system are both complex and entwined with various other elements including an ailing education system and even cultural values. The ministry’s latest strategy seems to be a solid attempt at engaging all the variables to create a bolder system for tomorrow.