Winds and stakes: Every minister is responsible for all laws

In the February 2001 government, the issue of increasing the rental value of industrial and service plots in Shuwaikh and other areas was raised. The matter was referred to the Economic Committee of the Council of Ministers, which decided on reasonable and well-considered increases that were approved by the Council of Ministers in the subsequent session. As was customary at that time, news of my position in the committee and my demand for an increase leaked out. I was surprised the next day to see one newspaper publish on its front page, expressing astonishment at why the Minister of Endowments was intervening in the rental prices of industrial plots. I contacted the head of the newspaper, whom I know and respect, but he insisted on criticizing my stance on the increase and the government’s decision as well. I clarified to him that I am a minister in the government and a member of the Economic Committee, and that I have a constitutional right to express my opinion on all laws and issues under discussion, whether they fall under the portfolio of the ministry I minister or others. This is a fundamental principle outlined in Article 128 of the Constitution, which stipulates that decisions are issued by a majority of those present, meaning every minister has the right to express his opinion on all matters, and can even vote against any law. Furthermore, I had studied the issue of increases with some specialists and formed an opinion that I believed served the public interest, which I presented in the committee with complete objectivity.

Thank God, the proposal for the increase withstood all objections and was implemented. It was included in the government’s program and the Five-Year Plan under the title “Maximizing Returns from Rented State Real Estate Assets.” This has been my practice, along with that of other ministers, in the governments I have participated in.

I recalled this incident in these days, as many specialists known for their knowledge and integrity are criticizing certain laws issued by the executive branch, arguing that they contain errors and will not achieve the desired or developmental goals. Some prominent constitutional law professors believe that the Law Regulating the Judiciary undermines the independence guaranteed to the judicial branch by the Constitution. Some trusted economists insist that the Real Estate Financing Law will not solve the housing problem and may burden citizens and the country with financial obligations and interest rates they cannot afford in the future. They argue that all countries in the world have adopted visions and approaches different from those proposed by this law. Additionally, some constitutional and legal specialists specializing in human rights issues are criticizing laws related to this matter and other laws discussed in international forums. Do the ministerial colleagues follow these opposing views, study them, and discuss them before those laws are issued, or do they leave them to the concerned minister?

In these circumstances, while exercising legislative authority, ministerial colleagues must make doubled efforts, meeting with constitutional law professors, specialists, economists, and other opinion leaders and experts on all laws. They must listen to them to ensure that legislation is free from any errors or doubts. They should not rely solely on the presentations of the minister and his advisors, who are also highly respected. As the poet Al-Mutanabbi once said:

Relying on a single opinion and not broadly incorporating other views into the discussion can lead to certain loopholes and errors, and may deprive the country of significant benefits. This is observable in many countries around the world.

Therefore, I believe that ministerial colleagues should strive to bring in opposing views to the drafts of certain laws and decisions proposed to them, provided these views are sound and scientific, and present them in the Council of Ministers before approving these laws. They should work to discuss them in a scientific and open manner. This will undoubtedly lead either to their confirmation or to their amendment, both of which will serve the public interest of the country, God willing.