The Amman Magistrate Court, headed by Judge Sharaf Abu Latifa, decided that a member of the current parliament is not responsible for the crime of defamation, slander and contempt against a Jordanian artist, and that what he said is within the limits of his right and his constitutional role in oversight and legislation.

And the court issued its decision during a public session, in which it said that “pursuant to the provisions of Article 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was decided to declare the representative not responsible for the incompleteness of the elements and elements of the offense ascribed to him.”

The court dismissed the claim of personal right for lack of jurisdiction and guaranteed the plaintiff the fees and expenses and an amount of 500 dinars, in presence and subject to appeal before the competent court.

The defendant, who is a member of parliament, was charged with the crime of defamation, libel and contempt, contrary to the provisions of Articles 188, 189, and 190 of the Penal Code, and the court found that Article 87 of the Jordanian constitution stipulates that “every member of the Senate and House of Representatives has complete freedom to speak and express an opinion within the limits of the system.” The internal affairs of the Council to which he is affiliated, and he may not be held accountable for any vote or opinion he expresses or a speech he delivers during the Council’s sessions.

The court indicated that the Jordanian constitution and most of the international constitutions surrounded the member of parliament with guarantees in order to carry out his role to the fullest extent, free from malicious claims, which is the guarantee of parliamentary immunity, which is of two types, the first of which is procedural and substantive.

And she emphasized that the law indicated that procedural immunity is relative by not arresting a member of Parliament or trying him during the session of the parliament to which he belongs except through an absolute majority decision to lift his immunity except in cases of flagrante delicto, and this immunity includes all criminal offenses.

She pointed out that objective immunity is that a member of parliament is not held accountable for any vote or opinion he expresses or a speech he delivers during the sessions of the parliament, and it is immunity for the member from any expression that constitutes a crime, libel and defamation.

And the court’s decision indicated that the representative’s speech during the session and the expressions he used against the artist may not be taken into account every word alone, as it was found that these phrases fall within criticism and censorship of the government and official authorities, and the representative requested that those responsible for the content of one of the films belonging to the complaining party be held accountable.

The decision affirmed that what the representative did falls within his constitutional immunity during his work and under the dome of Parliament, and it denies that he was subjected to the complainant in person, but rather directed criticism at the work and its method, which denies the completion of the elements and elements of the crime of defamation, slander and contempt against the defendant.

-(Petra)