Towards a Legal Definition of “Expropriation for the Public’s Interest”
15 Jul 2007The current legal and administrative case ongoing between the Municipality of Greater Amman and the Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Company is of particular significance in Jordan, due to the many parties involved and the pieces of evidence utilized by each of the main two parties. This confrontation is being fought in the internet and on the street, since traditional media outlets have backed out of covering this issue, due to fear of accusations of bias towards one side or the other.
Yet what is vital at the national level in this case, is that it must assist in finalizing the ongoing argument about the definition of the “public interest” that is being utilized by the Municipality of Amman or Social Security when expropriating lands and then selling them or using them in investment projects. These lands are used by destroying or removing the existent features on them, which could be homes or private companies.
A microcosm of this dispute occurred when the Municipality of Amman specified the land of the Amra park –after expropriating it- to the Bayan Company in order to build towers in the Sixth Circle area. The public park –which used to provide numerous services to the citizens in the area-, was removed from around the Amra hotel, and towers were built, which will eventually cause a lot of pressure on the infrastructure and the streets in the residential area. In addition, there will be the social disturbance and noise for the families living in the area. This case did not receive media attention due to the way the municipality dealt with the media at the time, but in the Abu-Ghazaleh case, the factors are different.
At the start, the municipality did no longer resort to the “carrot-and-stick” measures to prevent articles and news critical of it, which is a positive development and indicates open-mindedness. Further, Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Co. is in possession of a vast amount of resources and legal, administrative and financial capabilities to fight this battle till the end. This is what the population of the Amra and Sixth Circle areas could not do.
Regardless of the legal arguments in the case of the municipality vs. Talal Abu-Ghazaleh, it is crucial that this case –if and when it reaches to court- has a definitive legal definition of “the public interest”, which is used as an excuse for expropriation.
Personally, my understanding of the public interest is creation of public parks, schools, infrastructure, road expansions, creating parking lots or public health centers, and other services directly to benefit the citizen.
Yet the definition of “public interest” when it comes to the Municipality of Amman may be building investments that fulfill an overall “interest for the public” in employing people or attracting foreign investments. For example, Dubai Capital Co. and Social Security considered that the land specified for Social Security in the Dibbeen forest could be used for establishing a tourism project, and therefore that would represent an interest for the public.
In cases such as these, the main factor that finalizes the case should be utilization of Jordanian legislation and law and their proper implementation. The key words here are “public interest”, which have become an excuse for expropriating many lands and distinct areas. In many of these cases, there are no public services resulting, yet the purpose behind them is to solely support private investments. With the increasing desire regionally to invest in Jordan, it is necessary to protect both citizens’ rights and the interests of investors, by finalizing a definition of the public interest.
The Abu-Ghazaleh Co. has the ability to take this case to a level of decisiveness. Therefore, “Abu Mohammed” and “Abu Ali”, the everyday common men and owners of the small homes that the municipality is expropriating, can also use the same argument when it comes to the definition of public interest and accordingly refuse this expropriation. They can refuse it if the final outcome will not be a school or park that “Mohammed” and “Ali”, their children, can study and play in, but rather the creation of a tourism venture that will service only a particular sector of society.
The economic situation and inflation has made owning a home the most significant dream Jordanians have. Accordingly, it is vital that the issue of private ownership of houses be dealt with, with extreme sensitivity and respect. This is because the violation of this right of ownership and applying pressures on citizens to waiver their homes, which represent an accumulation of their lifelong’s hard work, is not an acceptable method to encourage investment.
There is no doubt that this topic –with the incoming new investments and the new comprehensive plan for Amman- needs a clear “legislative ‘Fatwa’ ” , such that the argument of the “public interest” is not abused, and the municipality can preserve its ability to expropriate. In the end, the law must prevail.
Follow us
