This post has been read 24834 times!
It must first be acknowledged that the authority in Kuwait did not practice administrative deportation, that is to say taking people from their homes and deporting them without giving them an opportunity to settle their issue, except in the narrowest limits, compared to countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council.
The reason lies in the availability of laws that limit this kind of unacceptable arbitrariness, which is practiced extensively in friendly and brotherly countries. The influential has nothing but to fabricate an accusation against those who owe him money, for example, in order to fabricate a “moral” charge for him and be deported to his homeland. This is not a rule, but it is practiced.
Mr Bassam’s questions focused on the controls, conditions and criteria for administrative deportation. Who has the right, and how we know the order of deportation is not based on malicious accusation and revenge, add to this a question about why such actions are not subject to judicial oversight.
* * *
I have lived and worked in the Gulf countries, and I saw how deportation was practiced in an arbitrary manner, as if there was an intention for revenge, without giving an opportunity for the deportee even to bid farewell to his family or pay off his debts and collect what owed to him, liquidate his business, and even authorize someone on his behalf. The situation for many of them was truly unfortunate.
As for what some justify that the deportation was done for violating public morals, this is a complex issue. Who determines the boundaries of public morals? Is spitting on the ground or cursing others worth deportation, for example? Are we a civil state or a religious state? Can the Interior Ministry deny that the matter, to a large extent is often subject to the mood and whims of an influential person and of military authority, for example?
Personal freedom is guaranteed by the constitution, but some see it as an ink on paper. Why is unacceptable act considered impoliteness if it was committed by a citizen and a crime if committed by a resident for which he should be deported?
Kuwait applies the rule “The accused is innocent until proven guilty.” Is this true? Does everyone submit to one justice?
Kuwait has always been unique compared to others. We hope that it will also come back at the hands of the new Minister of Interior, in whom we see good, at least with regard to the proper implementation of the administrative deportation and to place it in the hands of the judiciary, and not subject to the mood, with all respect to the honorable interior men, what happens offends them.
This will lift the maliciousness of these dangerous decisions, and stop the injustice against many.
By Ahmad alsarraf
The title of the article is derived from an article written by colleague and lawyer Bassam Al-Asousi, in which he listed a set of questions that did not and will not receive any answers, as they revolve around an arbitrary authoritarian, sovereign and unconstitutional right.