The Supreme Council of the Judicial Authority revealed the circumstances of amending Article 100 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Council of the Judicial Authority, by setting the statute of limitations for prosecutions related to the unjustified increase in the wealth of judges to 15 years, not 5 years.
The report stated: “Article 100 of the Council’s Organic Law stipulates that the statute of limitations for disciplinary follow-up stipulates that five years have passed since the act was committed, or that the statute of limitations for public lawsuits has passed if the committed act constitutes a criminal act.”
He added, “It became clear that, with regard to the decision on some cases by the Council, there is ambiguity in the interpretation of the texts related to this subject, especially the requirements of Article 107 of the Council’s Organic Law related to tracking the wealth of judges, as some opinions go to say that it is subject to the requirements of the statute of limitations stipulated in Article 100 referred to, which is What is not consistent with the philosophy of synthesis pursued by the state in general, and adopted by the Council, as it is an essential factor for achieving the independence of the judiciary and the integrity and impartiality of judges. “And their impartiality, which are constitutional principles on which the judicial system is based.”
Accordingly, the report indicates that “Article 100 was amended, by setting the statute of limitations for violations related to the unjustified increase in the wealth of judges to 15 years starting from the date of declaring the property, while emphasizing that there is no statute of limitations for violations related to property that the judge did not declare to the Council.
Article 107 of the Organic Law stipulates that the President-Delegate of the Council is charged with tracking the wealth of judges. He always has the right, after the approval of the Council members, to estimate the wealth of the judges, their spouses, and their children through inspection.
Any judge whose property has been proven to have increased significantly during the period of exercising his duties and which he cannot reasonably justify may be the subject of disciplinary follow-up.
