OUR rational government and the National Assembly of “Musical Chairs” are standing idle and watching most of the billionaire scourge of the corruption that we face and hear about every day, with the government failing in every step it takes.
The crystal-clear evidence of this failure is the successive decisions related to quarantine due to the COVID-19 pandemic – the quarantine that caused hundreds of citizens and residents to face bankruptcy, and mentally shattered thousands due to the unjustified expenses for their travel and PCR tests, and then having to sit idle at home.
The genius government, which suffers from a parliamentary stroke, has enacted a strange law to abolish the penalty of arrest warrant in new bankruptcy cases. We reluctantly choose to stay silent about it.
Nevertheless, our rational government says the law applies to all debtors including those who have been convicted. Here we say that this is the wonder of all wonders, because judgments are issued not only on the debts of bankrupt merchants but a judgment may be issued against someone who bought a commodity or merchandise and promised to pay its cost after a while, but did not do so.
A ruling may be issued against a divorced man to pay the money for the maintenance of his children and their housing, and the alimony of his ex-wife. It may be issued against a person who withholds official papers or refrains from issuing official papers such as birth certificates, passports and nationality for his minor children. There are dozens of examples that justify the issuance of such a threatening measure. Yes, by law, an arrest warrant is considered a threatening measure and not an executive one.
If you request it from the enforcement judge, he will issue it after ascertaining its feasibility and justification, but it will not be affixed by a detention order.
If the enforcement judge issues a ruling, it will not automatically be affixed with a detention order. He will look into the defendant’s procrastination in implementing a judgment without any justification other than obstinacy despite his ability to implement it.
The judge then gives the defendant a choice between implementing the judgment voluntarily or threatening him with detention for a few days. The unjustly obstinate person would then choose to implement the judgment in order to avoid detention.
If we abolish this threatening measure from the law, who will implement the sentence issued against such a person voluntarily?
Meanwhile, one of the sisterly Gulf states had amended one of its executive laws a few days ago, even though we preceded that country by decades in passing modern laws. This state and its sisterly countries are now being innovative in overcoming us in various fields such as implementing anti-corruption laws strictly, prioritizing education and advanced health and creating an infrastructure that we have not seen for decades.
The new law or the amendment of the old law by the sisterly country stipulates that, in case of any check without balance or if any check corresponds to a balance that is less than what was stated in it, the creditor can present it directly to the enforcement judge without resorting to the courts, and the judge will issue a warrant for arrest, seizure of property, or impose travel ban, provided the check is presented to him stamped by the drawee bank stating that it is a dud cheque or lacks sufficient balance.
Salute Kuwait, its rational government, and its “Musical Chairs” Assembly, which said “Bye Bye” to the orphan executive procedure of arrest warrant.
By Ali Ahmed Al-Baghli
Former Minister of Oil