The Nature of the Enforcement Officer's Duties: Pros and Cons

If the judge is the one who issues the ruling, the enforcement officer is the one who makes the ruling a reality; he is the executive face of the law. Frankly, his job is among the most difficult in the judicial system, as it involves direct interaction with the public. His duties can be summarized briefly as transforming paper documents into reality. He is responsible for serving judicial documents and enforcement orders to the debtor, seizing the debtor’s assets—whether real estate, movable property, or bank accounts—and selling seized assets at public auction to satisfy the creditor’s claim. At times, he is forced to resort to coercive force, through the enforcement police, if the debtor refuses to comply voluntarily.

But is he held accountable for his responsibilities as an enforcement officer? Yes, without a doubt. He does not act on his own whims; he is bound by the law and follows the directives of the Director of the Enforcement Department. He is held accountable and liable if he violates the law—for example, if he enforces against property not owned by the debtor due to negligence or oversight, or if he delays enforcement, resulting in the loss of the creditor’s rights or the debtor’s ability to smuggle out assets. He also faces liability if he exceeds his authority, such as by using excessive force or entering a place without authorization. In short, he is subject to civil compensation claims or administrative sanctions if he errs.

Regarding the negatives and positives, the positive aspect is that he gives rulings their true value; without him, judgments remain mere words on paper. He is the one who ensures the law prevents people from manipulating the system. On the negative side, he faces tremendous psychological pressure from creditors who insist on urgent enforcement against debtors. These conditions affect his work, not to mention the complexities of legal procedures that sometimes hinder his operations and make enforcement extremely slow.

Frankly, litigants do not do the enforcement officer justice, viewing him as an authoritarian figure who comes to seize their livelihood, whereas he is actually a fair legal instrument. Undoubtedly, these perceptions impose psychological burdens on the enforcement officer, in addition to the numerous procedural burdens. These burdens should decrease in the era of digital transformation; in our time, the role of the enforcement officer should be more digital, rather than relying on physical mobility for every minor and major task.

There is also a challenge regarding accountability for the enforcement officer. He often fears taking bold actions, such as breaking down a door or executing a rapid seizure, for fear of being held accountable. This hesitation and fear of liability reduce the effectiveness of enforcement. This would be different if there were direct judicial police power, authorized by the enforcement judge, which would provide greater legal protection and security for the enforcement officer when making rapid field decisions. This would also enhance the effectiveness of procedures and make enforcement much faster.

In conclusion, the enforcement officer is both the weakest and the most crucial link. He needs the development of his tools and a reduction in procedural constraints that tie his hands, in order to be able to enforce the authority of the law on the ground.

Issa Adel Al-Alsah

College of Business Studies – Law Major