2019-08-22

West Bank and Gaza Strip

West Bank / Gaza / Announcement / position paper

MUSAWA's Statement on the Latest Presidential Decisions

The President’s Decisions on Chancellors and Minister’s Funds had fallen short of the desired objectives and an independent commission shall be established to enforce them along with accountability rules to ensure that impunity is not an option and to guarantee good public financial management

MUSAWA-The Palestinian Center for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession has thoroughly observed the latest two Presidential Decisions, issued on 19/8/2019, on dismissing the entire President’s Chancellors, regardless of their designations or levels, annulling the contracts and decisions related to them, suspending the privileges given to them by their consultative capacity, obliging the members and Prime Minister of the Seventeenth Government to refund in a lump sum the money they received during the period before the President’s indexation on their salaries and severance packages, while considering the funds they received after the President’s indexation as severances, and binding Ministers, who were not proved as tenants during that period, to refund the rent allowance amount. Based on the aforementioned, MUSAWA wishes to put the following observations on record: 

First: MUSAWA’s observations on suspending the consultative capacity of all Chancellors, regardless of their designations or levels, annulling the contracts and decisions related to them, and freezing the privileges given to them by their consultative capacity:

1. The decision is fraught with addressing two groups of Chancellors, the first includes those who occupy public posts besides their work as Chancellors and by this decision, they will keep their public posts and its privileges, as the decision does not suspend them, does not refer them to retirement, and does not limit their powers, which means that the structure of the Executive Authority has not undergone a genuine process of Modification. As for the second group, it includes a small number of Chancellors, who only enjoy consultative capacities, and by this decision, their services will be suspended. 

2. The contents of the decision, especially the parts addressing the suspension of the contracts, raises many questions, for example, the consultative capacity of the chancellors who belong to the first shall be considered a secondment to their original posts, hence the rights and privileges granted to them by their consultative post shall be determined by the Civil Service Act, concluding that the government is facing a state of privileges duplication, as the mentioned group of Chancellors, enjoy the rights and powers of their both their original post and consultative post. In this context, MUSAWA believes that the president's power to assign and choose his Chancellors does not disregard that such decisions shall determine the Chancellors ‘grade, rights, and privileges following the Civil Service Act and the Law on the Salaries and Privileges of Ministers, and does not imply the need for resorting to further contracts that grant Chancellors additional rights, which represent an attempt to rationalize the public finances and adhere to the laws governing public services. On the other hand, the Delimitation Decisions of Chancellors, who belong to the second group, shall include the contracts signed with them and govern their rights and privileges by relevant laws.

3. Substantive experts asserted that there is no accurate number of the President’s Chancellors, as the expectations range from 10 to 97 Chancellors, which raises the need to issue a document with numbers and names of the Chancellors, whose consultative capacities were suspended, to ease the work of the competent official bodies, such as the Ministry of Finance and the General Personnel Council.

4. Although this decision is ambiguous, it can be explained in two ways, first: the inconsistent visions of the President and his Chancellors, given that this decision arose in the wake of the President’s statements on the lack of consistency between him and a number of his Chancellors, and second: the need to decrease the Public Expenditure related to dual salaries and privileges, including cars, escorts, and drivers, granted to Chancellors holding both public and consultative posts.

5. In the absence of the Right to Information Act, MUSAWA believes that it is imperative to bind all First Category Employees, Ministers, Chancellors, and persons of equivalent status, to announce their financial disclosures, salaries, and privileges to the public. MUSAWA also calls upon suspending consultative contracts and decisions and relying on the laws governing civil service, including the Civil Service Act, and The Law on the Salaries and Privileges of the Consultative Council’s Members, Ministers, and Governors. Furthermore, MUSAWA believes that it is essential not to grant the consultative capacity’ rights and privileges to the Chancellors who occupy other public posts and periodically announce the Chancellors’ names and tasks. 

6. A few hours after the Presidential decision on suspending all Chancellors, the President reassigned a number of them in the same old way, by signing exceptional contracts with those who occupy other public posts, noting that those contracts may have granted the assigned Chancellors rights and privileges that exceed those that are provided by other related laws. MUSAWA believes that the President probably should have appointed them as Chancellors and identified their grade in his decision, excluding any additional rights or privileges, taking into consideration the laws and acts governing them.

Second: The decision on obliging the Prime Minister and Ministers of the Seventeenth Government to refund in a lump sum the money they received during the period before the president’s indexation on their salaries and severance packages, while considering the funds they received after the president’s indexation as severances, and binding the Ministers, who were not proved as tenants during that period, to refund the rent allowance amount. 

1. The aforementioned decision grants the President’s indexation a legislative power in contradiction with the provisions of the Basic Law, including article 43, on the assumption that this indexation carries with it an amendment of the laws governing the salaries and privileges of ministers and persons of equivalent status. MUSAWA believes that this the gravest side of the decision, given that the provisions of the Basic Law and the principles of Good Governance do not elevate the status of administrative indexations to the legislative level, as they manifestly contradict with the rules of legislation in terms of jurisdiction, generalization, impartiality, and justifications.

2. Limiting the decision to the members of the previous government contradicts with the official statements of the Former Prime Minister, who admitted, by invoking the decision of the Finance Minister, that Ministers were not the only ones earning the funds mentioned in the decision, and that they have been retroactively paid all those funds since the date of first taking up their ministerial and general posts, obliges the decision to involve all the funds’ earners to the contrary. 

3. The Presidential decision and the subsequent statements, decisions, and confessions of the Former Prime Minister entail that several corruption crimes were committed, such as racketeering from civil service posts, thus, if the decision confines Ministers to refund the money they received before the indexation, it does not have the authority to exempt them from the penal liability or any other accountability and investigation proceedings. MUSAWA calls for implementing the accountability and investigation proceedings and enforcing the penal liability, in addition to refunding the outstanding amount, without limiting those proceeding to the ministers of the Seventeenth Government. 

4. Specifying the period during which the addressees have to refund the money they received before the indexation breaches the provisions of the existing legislation and entails that they are being amended by administrative resolutions, as the decision unlawfully considered the money received after the indexation a severance, without defining the notion of “severance”, or identifying whether it is a one-off benefit, or part of the pension salary, which has further implications of the pensions. From a legal standpoint, MUSAWA perceives that the decree’s components that address the mentioned respect are faulty, that the indexation must have been canceled, and that the outstanding amount must have been refunded regardless of the existing legislation, or that at least precisely identify the severance granted by the indexation, if it was provided by a legal text in the first place, on the condition that it be considered a one-off benefit rather than part of the pension.  

5. The decision revealed the legislative deficiencies and serious threats imposed by the laws governing the rights and privileges of the First Category Employees, as the point of contention, is not related to the value of the salary, but rather to the considerable number of privileges that significantly exceeds that value, noting that those privileges include the office petty cash, cars, drivers, escorts, and allowances for electricity service, phone service, and rent, which urges the civil society to establish a national commission that joins members of both within and outside the Executive Authority, to follow up with the legislation and laws governing the rights and privileges of the First Category Civil Service Employees, to amend them in a manner that minimizes those privileges to the greatest extent, and to oblige Ministers to identify their financial allowances in an explicit manner that is not open to interpretation. 

6. The decision and the statements of the Former Prime Minister represents a reasonable ground for establishing an independent commission from outside the Executive Authority to implement this decree-law in accordance with the existing legislation covering the decree's financial and penal aspects, as at this stage, the implementation of this decision represents the vital civil need, given that providing retroactive payments starting from the date of first taking up public posts was explicitly approved by the statements of the Former Prime Minister, who is responsible for his Government’s members, who in their turn are responsible to him, and they all are accountable to the law, the President, and the society according to article (74) of the Basic Law. 

7.   Limiting the refund of rent allowances to Ministers, who were not proven as tenants, is inadequate, as it is applicable on the Ministers of the Seventeenth Government only, and as it does not apply to other privileges, which are still not addressed in terms of their reimbursement process. 

8. MUSAWA believes that the decision shall be amended to involve all Ministers and persons of equivalent status, such as Chiefs of Commissions, Authorities, and other figures, that the severances given by this decree-law shall be canceled and shall not be considered as part of the pension, or part of the new Ministers’ salaries and privileges.

9. MUSAWA believes that it is necessary to accelerate the process of amending the laws governing the rights of ministers and persons of equivalent status and to oblige them to announce their financial disclosures and monthly incomes. 

Issued on 22/8/2019

MUSAWA