2026-06-28
88 Views
Jafra News –
Jordan Transparency Center has followed with concern the decision of the House of Representatives to abolish the Ombudsman Bureau and transfer its assets and functions to the Anti-Corruption Commission. The Center expresses its dissatisfaction with the hasty manner in which this decision was taken without prior studies or convincing objective justifications.
It also affirms Article (17) of the Jordanian Constitution, which states that Jordanians have the right to address public authorities regarding personal matters or matters related to public affairs, in the manner and conditions defined by law. It also recalls the National Charter, which considers the activation of Article 17 as part of the pillars of the rule of law, to be implemented through the establishment of an independent body called the Ombudsman Bureau under a special law. This body is mandated to conduct administrative inspections, monitor the performance of the administration and the conduct of its officials, and submit reports to Parliament and the Council of Ministers in accordance with the Constitution and applicable laws and regulations, without affecting the independence and jurisdiction of the judiciary.
The Center further stresses that there is no overlap between the functions of the Ombudsman Bureau and those of the Anti-Corruption Commission. It argues that merging these two institutions would cause damage that is difficult to remedy or contain. The Ombudsman Bureau is a supervisory tool over public administration when traditional oversight mechanisms are unable to provide effective monitoring of administrative work. It also works to simplify administrative procedures and review any matter related to government decisions, actions, or practices from another perspective.
In contrast, the Anti-Corruption Commission focuses on the element of corruption in administrative decisions or practices and takes punitive legal action against violations. Its primary aim is to uncover corruption in public administration or among public employees. While this is an essential objective of comprehensive administrative reform, it does not cover all aspects of administrative deficiencies, which necessitates the existence of another body to address other forms of maladministration, such as violations of law (which may not necessarily constitute corruption), misapplication of law, negligence, abuse of power, improper conduct, discrimination, lack of transparency, and other issues that are not necessarily driven by corruption but may facilitate it.
This means that the Ombudsman Bureau complements these institutions rather than overlaps with them. It remains a safeguard for all cases of administrative negligence and errors that are not subject to judicial review and therefore do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Commission.
The Center also emphasizes that the Bureau’s role in receiving complaints and investigating them compels public administration to respond to complaints in accordance with the law. The administration must justify the action, decision, or omission being challenged. This mechanism forces the administration to explain its actions, which are often not properly justified unless required by law. Thus, the Bureau plays an important role in establishing principles of transparency and good governance.
Citizens dealing with government institutions have the right to know the reasons behind administrative decisions taken against them. In the absence of such justification, individuals may remain uncertain and may feel they have been subjected to injustice or violation of rights. This is something that other oversight bodies do not provide, nor can it easily be incorporated into their mandates due to the nature of their work.
Finally, the Center reiterates its regret over the Parliament’s decision and stresses that the Kingdom will lose an important institution that establishes and reinforces transparency in government operations and official institutions. It hopes that the Senate will reconsider this decision, in accordance with its constitutional powers, taking into account the achievements of the Ombudsman Bureau in resolving 78% of the complaints submitted to it that fall outside the jurisdiction of the judiciary, making it one of the most successful oversight institutions in protecting the rights of citizens dealing with public institutions.
Thursday – 22/06/2013
Jordan Transparency Center has followed with concern the decision of the House of Representatives to abolish the Ombudsman Bureau and transfer its assets and functions to the Anti-Corruption Commission. The Center expresses its dissatisfaction with the hasty manner in which this decision was taken without prior studies or convincing objective justifications.
It also affirms Article (17) of the Jordanian Constitution, which states that Jordanians have the right to address public authorities regarding personal matters or matters related to public affairs, in the manner and conditions defined by law. It also recalls the National Charter, which considers the activation of Article 17 as part of the pillars of the rule of law, to be implemented through the establishment of an independent body called the Ombudsman Bureau under a special law. This body is mandated to conduct administrative inspections, monitor the performance of the administration and the conduct of its officials, and submit reports to Parliament and the Council of Ministers in accordance with the Constitution and applicable laws and regulations, without affecting the independence and jurisdiction of the judiciary.
The Center further stresses that there is no overlap between the functions of the Ombudsman Bureau and those of the Anti-Corruption Commission. It argues that merging these two institutions would cause damage that is difficult to remedy or contain. The Ombudsman Bureau is a supervisory tool over public administration when traditional oversight mechanisms are unable to provide effective monitoring of administrative work. It also works to simplify administrative procedures and review any matter related to government decisions, actions, or practices from another perspective.
In contrast, the Anti-Corruption Commission focuses on the element of corruption in administrative decisions or practices and takes punitive legal action against violations. Its primary aim is to uncover corruption in public administration or among public employees. While this is an essential objective of comprehensive administrative reform, it does not cover all aspects of administrative deficiencies, which necessitates the existence of another body to address other forms of maladministration, such as violations of law (which may not necessarily constitute corruption), misapplication of law, negligence, abuse of power, improper conduct, discrimination, lack of transparency, and other issues that are not necessarily driven by corruption but may facilitate it.
This means that the Ombudsman Bureau complements these institutions rather than overlaps with them. It remains a safeguard for all cases of administrative negligence and errors that are not subject to judicial review and therefore do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Commission.
The Center also emphasizes that the Bureau’s role in receiving complaints and investigating them compels public administration to respond to complaints in accordance with the law. The administration must justify the action, decision, or omission being challenged. This mechanism forces the administration to explain its actions, which are often not properly justified unless required by law. Thus, the Bureau plays an important role in establishing principles of transparency and good governance.
Citizens dealing with government institutions have the right to know the reasons behind administrative decisions taken against them. In the absence of such justification, individuals may remain uncertain and may feel they have been subjected to injustice or violation of rights. This is something that other oversight bodies do not provide, nor can it easily be incorporated into their mandates due to the nature of their work.
Finally, the Center reiterates its regret over the Parliament’s decision and stresses that the Kingdom will lose an important institution that establishes and reinforces transparency in government operations and official institutions. It hopes that the Senate will reconsider this decision, in accordance with its constitutional powers, taking into account the achievements of the Ombudsman Bureau in resolving 78% of the complaints submitted to it that fall outside the jurisdiction of the judiciary, making it one of the most successful oversight institutions in protecting the rights of citizens dealing with public institutions.
Thursday – 22/06/2013