Concept of Expropriation for the Public Interest Symposium Held in Amman

Abu-Ghazaleh Presents Information and Facts Published for the First Time

What?s happening here is a new and unique way of using the law in contravention of the public interest and benefit - Al-Dahleh

AMMAN - In collaboration with the Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR) in Jordan, a seminar was held at the Talal Abu-Ghazaleh College of Business ? German Jordanian University (TAGCB-GJU) on February 12, 2008, entitled ?The Concept of Expropriation for Public Interest ? The Abdali Area (Expropriation Laws in Jordan)?. The event was attended by a large gathering of law experts, human rights activists, media, Abdali inhabitants, in addition to other interested parties.

AOHR/Jordan President attorney Hani Al-Dahleh addressed the legal aspects of expropriation, clarifying that what has been going on in the Abdali area contradicts Jordanian laws and represents a blatant violation of human rights.

He stated that any squandering of these rights or violation of the texts of law, is considered an abuse of power which requires holding relevant parties responsible and questioning them.

He added: ?If we realize that the inhabitants of the Abdali area had refused to sell their properties, and conducted noticeable activity through the meetings they held, the lawsuits they filed, and the announcements they published in newspapers on the violations taking place against their ownership rights and the freedom of disposition with their properties, we?d see that what is happening here is a new and unique way of using the law in contravention of the public interest and benefit."

Al-Dahleh believes that all such violations and activities must be ceased in accordance with the regulations of the constitution, the law, and human rights principles.

Attorney Omar Al-Atout, legal advisor for the Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization (TAGorg), explained the phases that the expropriations case has gone through, all the way up to the presentation of the appeal by TAGorg to the Higher Court of Justice. He stated that this case is still being looked into by the Court.

Engineer Fares Al-Muasher, the consultant of Systems for Engineering Information, displayed a presentation on the status of traffic in the Abdali area, after conducting an extensive engineering and technical study of that specific area. He emphasized that the schemes publicized by the Greater Amman Municipality (GAM) will deepen the crisis and the traffic jams in Queen Noor Street which is adjacent to the project, and will cause traffic chaos due to the major intersections and tunnels nearby.  

Further, he added that the expansion of the Al-Ameen Street is only to serve the private investment project in the northern area, since it currently only serves some very light traffic. He explained that the creation of this project in this area will increase the amount of traffic at nearby intersections that currently have low traffic levels.

Mr. Talal Abu-Ghazaleh talked publicly about the issue of expropriation for the first time, and presented the audience with information and facts about the case, and why TAGorg appealed the expropriation, emphasizing that ?we submit these facts in an open symposium because we are fortunate enough to live in a state of law?

Abu-Ghazaleh then said:   
 

For the reasons below,
we appeal the expropriation decision of the Abdali Area

(No. 64/12/1/10046)

Date: 22/5/2007

1. The former Cabinet based its decision on misleading information presented to it by the Greater Amman Municipality (GAM) when the expropriation request was made, including letters that contradicted the truth, artificial schemes and misleading information.

2.  The issued Cabinet decision contradicts the advertisement published by GAM in newspapers, as it was based on plans that differ from what was mentioned by the Cabinet.

3. We clarified the mistakes listed in tables published by GAM when the expropriation request was made, when comparing these tables with those that were included in the Cabinet?s decision. There was neither clarification on this discrepancy nor any modification forthcoming from either GAM or the previous Cabinet.

4.  The issued Cabinet decision was based on a request by the Mayor of Amman during his membership on the private companys board of directors. The company was registered under the name of the ?Abdali Investment and Development Psc" in the trade register. The company is the main beneficiary from the expropriation.

5. The Mayor sent to the former prime minister a letter 
dated 24/3/2007, claiming that the Higher Court of Justice has approved GAM?s right to expropriation, when in fact, no expropriation decision had yet been made. As a result, we were unable to appeal. Consequently the court was unable to look into any such appeal. The issue facing the court was GAMs right in placing the real estate property under study for an indefinite period of time.

6. The ex-Cabinets decision was invalid as it was issued without fulfilling the conditions of the expropriation request as set forth in Article 4 of the Expropriation Law No. 12 of 1987, namely:

- Real estate scheme to be expropriated
- A preliminary estimate of the total compensation
- Providing proof of the financial capacity of the GAM

In accordance with the text of this Article, the GAMs request of expropriation and the announcement that it is void is not reliable. Therefore the Cabinets decision that was issued based on this request cannot be considered.

7.  The expropriation decision is disgraceful and associated with the violation of the constitution and law, the abuse of authority and a diversion of this authority from public interest goals. We have undeterred trust in the Jordanian judicial system as the final line of defense of the state of law and institutions, as always upheld by His Majesty King Abdullah II.

8. We have directed to the GAM over 30 letters regarding this subject and have not yet received a reply explaining this unjustified misuse of power against this institution.

9. The expropriation decision was issued following the failure of the Mayors decision dated 12/6/2005, to place the land areas under study for 24 months, up until the issue of the expropriation decision on 22/5/2007. This compelled a large number of real estate owners to sell their properties to the private beneficiary company only, according to documented evidence.

10. The first announced expropriation was issued by the Deputy Chairman of Abdali Investment and Development Psc in a local newspaper, dated 12/10/2006, in response to our public refusal to sell. GAM announced in that same newspaper that no expropriation of Abu-Ghazalehs lands will take place and that negotiations are the sole solution.

11. The Mayor stated in his letter No. 7/1/H/288 dated 8/1/2007 to the Land Registry that the properties are subject to the Cabinets decision and are not included in the expropriation decision. The Mayor added that he has no objection to their sale, however only to Abdali Investment and Development Psc, and therefore has cancelled the expropriation decision on the grounds of public interest.

12. The maps submitted to us by the Mayor, which were prepared by a Lebanese company affiliated with the beneficiary company, proves that these properties were expropriated for private investment purposes.

13. The equipment and machinery on the site, along with the giant billboards surrounding it, show the launch of an investment project on the site. Conversely, the expropriation decision claims that 44% of the real estate to be acquired will be converted into parks and the remaining 56% will be converted into roads, according to the tables contained in GAMs request to the former premiership, published on 17/4/2007.

14. Some of the acquired properties, including our own, were expropriated under the pretext of road construction, while the Provincial Committees decisions (Nos. 214, 692) require from the investment company, Abdali Investment and Development Psc, to ?classify streets, purchase roadways, execute solutions related to traffic issues and collect compensation.? Therefore, within the expropriation decision itself is an attempt to burden the state with the funds required to service the interest of a private investment company, while the GAM had declared on numerous occasions that Abdali Investment and Development Psc will be responsible for those expenses.

15. The Mayor allowed the sale of real estate property solely to the private company (Abdali Investment and Development Psc) with the exclusion of others, despite the fact that he prevented any actions from being taken in relation to said real estate, under the reasoning that they were under study; a decision taken by the Mayor himself.

16.  Some of the properties mentioned in the expropriation decision were sold according to the private companys documents, after these properties were acquired by GAM on grounds of the public benefit.

17. In order to mislead the Court, the Mayor submitted false evidence to the Higher Court of Justice claiming that the GAM has not allowed for the sale of real estate property while under study, or after the expropriation decision, and has not granted any building licenses to the private company.

18.  The alleged successive and multi-designed road network plans (on the street corner of Queen Noor Street and the Al Ameen Street), which were prepared by the Lebanese company and relied upon by the GAM, have proven their futility and lack of seriousness towards a technical architectural study prepared by four international offices, and were instead aimed to compel us to sell off our real estate.

19. The Mayor has lost both neutrality and independence in this project, given that he issued a decision that placed the properties in the Abdali area under study on his part as Mayor, while issuing another decision as a board member of the private company, allowing for the sale of properties that he previously placed under study, and prevented its sale except for the private beneficiary company.

20.  The GAM allowed investment companies to sell towers and flats without being granted construction and building licenses. This resulted in the violation of the laws and regulations of the GAM itself as well as a undermining citizens and investors rights and questioning the credibility of the expropriation decision.

21. The Mayor, as evidence shows, played the role of mediator to convince real estate owners through persuasion and threats of acquisition, including ourselves, to complete the sale transaction to the private company. Those threats included demolishing buildings and the disconnection of facilities, in case those owners did not agree to sell.  

22. The Mayor, along with the managers of the private company,  presented us in our office with various and successive plans prepared by the Lebanese firm (an affiliate of the private company and not GAM) that were later adjusted to fulfill the goals of the private company.

23. The Mayor misused his authority in facing our legal demands to compel us into selling to the private company, in which he is a board member, threatening expropriation at a low price, should we refuse to sell.

24. We have begun the legal proceedings against the Mayor and will hold onto the ownership of our properties, and shall remain in them until:

? The Criminal Court of Justice reaches a verdict on our claims against documents presented by the Mayor to the Higher Court of Justice to misguide its decision;
? The courts decide on the compensation amount to be paid to us, in accordance with Article 7 of the Expropriation Law.

25. Our professional experience in financial, economic and real estate studies, indicate to us that this project is a damage to the national economy and an impending catastrophe, in contrast to what has been rumored of it serving the benefit of the nation. We are ready to prove its non-economic feasibility and negative effects on the real estate market, rents, traffic and cost of living.

26. The company announced that the expropriation was for the benefit of the public. However, one of the companies that have contracted with Abdali Investment and Development Psc, for the construction of towers in the first phase of the project (the building of the towers), offered to sell us built-up area at a rate of  JD3000/ m².

27. This decision undermines the confidence of both Jordanians and non-Jordanians to invest in Jordan, out of fear from the expropriation of their properties and projects through the abuse of expropriation rights for the public interest.

28. We have confidence in our enlightened government, entrusted by His Majesty King Abdullah II, to ensure the protection of the law and rights of citizens.

29. We are defending a national and public cause that also upholds our own interest, given that our property was included in the expropriation decision, even though it has not undergone a sale yet; for we do not call for the cancellation of the expropriation decision on our lands alone, but on all the properties included in the decision, because this decision is null and void in its entirety and in its minute details. It does not make sense legally to claim that our real estate in particular has not been sold till now as a response to our appeal. This is a public, legal, ethical and moral case.

30. The right of ownership is a sacred right that should not be stripped from a citizen in favor of another on the grounds of public interest.

31. We live in a state of law, as decreed by His Majesty King Abdullah II, and wish to prove through this request to cancel the expropriation decision, that his command, will always prevail.

Talal Abu-Ghazaleh

12/2/2008