Ammon – The Labor Party expressed its surprise at the Independent Election Commission’s decision to nominate the expelled member of the party, Hamza Hani Muhammad Khalil “Al-Toubasi,” to replace the expelled member Muhammad al-Jarrah to represent him in the twentieth House of Representatives.

The party said in a statement today, Thursday, that this is in clear violation of the law and the clear requirements of the party’s statute, which stipulate that the decisions of the party court are strictly administrative decisions.

He stated that keeping member Hamza Hanif registered in the party’s records under the pretext of his appeal before the Administrative Court is a reversal of a stable legal rule that stipulates that a final administrative decision is effective and produces its effects until it is judicially annulled, not that its effectiveness is suspended until it is upheld. Enforcement is the principle, cancellation is the exception, and it is not permissible to replace this principle with unsupported reasoning.

The party indicated that the issue is not an issue of seat, but rather an issue of law, and not a personal dispute, but rather a battle of principle, according to the statement, declaring that it does not recognize the body’s nomination of member Hamza, and confirms that it does not represent the party politically or organizationally, stressing that the party will resort to the judiciary.

Yesterday, Wednesday, the Independent Electoral Commission announced the nomination of the youth candidate on the Labor Party list, Hamza Hani Khalil “Al-Toubasi,” to the House of Representatives as a member of the Council after issuing a final decision to expel MP Muhammad Al-Jarrah from the party and lose his membership in Parliament.

The Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of the Independent Election Commission, Engineer Musa Al-Maaytah, said on Wednesday that Al-Toubasi is still a member of the party due to his appeal against the dismissal decision, and will remain a member until a final decision is issued to that effect.

Below is the text of the statement:

The Labor Party expresses its deep astonishment and disapproval at the Independent Election Commission’s decision to nominate dismissed member Hamza Hani Mohammed Khalil to replace dismissed member Mohammed Al-Jarrah to represent the party in the twentieth House of Representatives, in a procedure that we see as clearly contrary to the law and the requirements of the party’s statute.

The Statute of the Workers’ Party clearly and unequivocally stipulates that the decisions of the Party Court are final administrative decisions, and the Parties Law confirms that the Statute is the reference in determining the authority competent to adjudicate internal disputes, and that the Administrative Court has the sole jurisdiction over appeals directed to the parties’ final administrative decisions. The law did not grant the authority any authority to disrupt the party’s decisions or stop their implementation, unless they violate the constitution, the law, or the statute, which is not the case.

As for keeping the member registered in the party’s records under the pretext of his appeal before the Administrative Court, it is a reversal of a stable legal rule that stipulates that a final administrative decision is effective and produces its effects until it is judicially annulled, and not its effectiveness is suspended until it is upheld. Enforcement is the principle, cancellation is the exception, and it is not permissible to replace this principle with unsupported reasoning.

The party also raises serious question marks about the unprecedented speed in the placement procedures, despite the fact that Article (88) of the Constitution gives the House of Representatives thirty days to notify the body of the vacancy, and gives the body sixty days to appoint a successor. The most dangerous thing is that the party was not notified in writing of the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court supporting the dismissal of member Muhammad Al-Jarrah until hours after it was issued. However, correspondence took place between the Authority and the House of Representatives, the Board of Commissioners and the permanent office in the House of Representatives convened, the placement decision was issued, and the date for taking the oath was set… in a few hours.

How was it possible for the decision to be circulated in print among these parties before it reached the party itself?

The party is surprised by the Commission’s insistence on applying Paragraph (3) of Article (58/A) of the Election Law, ignoring Paragraph (4) of the same article, which is the specific text that explicitly addresses the case of dismissal from the party by a decision that has acquired a final status. The established fundamentalist rule says: There is no jurisprudence in the source of the text, just as the specific restricts the general, and the later restricts the previous. Going beyond the clear text empties the legislation of its content and opens the door to misplaced diligence.

What is happening is going beyond the limits of the administrative procedure and directly affecting the jurisdiction of the judiciary and the party’s right to manage its affairs in accordance with the provisions of the law. Any jumping on jurisdiction or rushing to create political events before the legal process is completed constitutes a violation of the principle of separation of powers and a usurpation of the powers of the judicial authority.

The party has been deprived of its parliamentary seat for more than a year, by allowing an expelled member to remain under the dome without real political or legal representation. Today, after the judiciary upheld the party’s decision and confirmed its legitimacy and the soundness of its procedures, another dismissed member has been nominated to represent the party in the council! This path does not affect the party alone, but rather affects public confidence in the entire political modernization system.

The arrangement of members on the party list is not a formality, and political representation is not a mandate granted by an administrative body or extracted from party institutions. It is an expression of an organizational will established in accordance with the law, and any violation of it is an assault on the essence of party work, the principle of public partnership, and the rule of law.

The issue is not an issue of seat… but an issue of law. It is not a personal dispute… but a battle of principle.

Accordingly, the Labor Party announces that it does not recognize the body’s nomination of the dismissed member, Hamza, and confirms that he does not represent the party politically or organizationally. The party also announces that it is resorting to the judiciary and waging an open legal and political battle in defense of the rule of law and preserving its right to manage its affairs in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and applicable legislation.

Betting on exhaustion or intimidation is a losing bet, as the people are partners in decision-making… not subordinate to them.