No reason to delay

The extraordinary session of Parliament saw the adoption of four major bills, already endorsed by the House’s Legal Committee, by people’s representatives.

The four laws entail upgrading the criminal court procedures, improving mediation procedures for settling civil disputes, which could help cut lengthy and labourious litigation, reforming the Law of the Evidence and upgrading the magistrate courts system, expanding their jurisdiction and number.

Some MPs expressed reservations, claiming that the House rushed to endorse the proposed pieces of legislation; others insisted that the laws in question had been thoroughly examined, deliberated and endorsed by the House’s own Legal Committee, which is the technical body entrusted with examining new laws and regulations.

The four items of legislation are part of a 16-bill package intended to improve the performance of the judicial system based on recommendations by the Royal Committee for Developing the Judiciary and Enhancing the Rule of Law, set up by His Majesty King Abdullah. 

The extraordinary session of Parliament was held in order to make legislators act on pending bills that should not suffer additional delays. 

Deputies had about two months of recess, during which they could assess and take decisions on the not so controversial laws; there should not have been, really, any more reason for further procrastination on their adoption.

The new laws are technical in nature and do not reflect a major shift in policy.

Moreover, the recommendations of the Royal Commission for Reforming the Judiciary should be considered as only the beginning of a continuous process under which the judicial system, with all the accompanying laws, should be continuously assessed, monitored and changed if the need arises.

The recommendations and actions on their bases are open for continuous scrutiny.

Deputies who have real objections can always raise them after the new laws are fully tested. Any additional loopholes or omissions can only be detected after the direct application of the law in a court of law.

And it is only then that legal experts can determine whether more is needed to perfect them.