The Jordanian judiciary acknowledges that the National Assembly is not responsible for the Israeli gas agreement

Mahmoud Al-Sharaan - Amman

The decision of the Jordanian Constitutional Court did not come as the House of Representatives wanted with regard to the Israeli gas agreement. The court decided that the National Assembly was not responsible for approving the gas agreement concluded with the occupation.

The court in its decision on Monday adopted legal provisions, considering that the National Electric Power Company, although all its shares are owned by the government, do not give them the status of public institutions, as they are no longer under the general management of the State.

According to the court, agreements concluded by wholly-owned companies with other companies do not fall within the concept of agreements dealing with reconciliation, alliance, trade or navigation, in addition to not being agreements that result in an amendment in the territory of the state that diminish their sovereignty or affect the rights of Jordanians.

Parliamentary refused
The Deputy Prime Minister Rajai Muasher asked the Presidency of the House of Representatives to transfer the file of the gas agreement to the Constitutional Court on March 27 last, but the parliamentary response was clear after a unanimous vote to reject the agreement.

Parliament Speaker Atef Tarawneh responded to Muasher that "the people reject the agreement and the government should cancel it whatever the court decision."

Tarawneh told Al Jazeera Net that the decision is legal without discussion, but the Jordanian House of Representatives rejected the gas agreement, explaining that the MPs reject the agreement politically, and that the Council has constitutional tools to stop the agreement.

For his part, a member of the Parliamentary Reform Committee, former Bar Association Saleh Armouti that the role of the Constitutional Court is to examine the constitutionality of laws and agreements, not to express a legal opinion.

Armouti told Al Jazeera Net that the government's question to the Constitutional Court is misleading, accusing the court of giving a decision without looking at the agreement that the government should have provided.

American guarantees
The agreement provides for the supply of gas to Jordan for 15 years worth up to about $ 15 billion, which was considered a large amount in light of the decline in global gas prices and the availability of alternative sources.

The agreement included penal provisions of up to $ 1.5 billion in the event of cancellation of the agreement and lack of compliance with Jordanian law.

In the agreement, the US intermediary company "Noble Energy" guarantees that Jordan will not abandon the deal by guaranteeing the transfer of some US aid funds allocated to the Kingdom to Israel, in the event of the failure of the Jordanian company to pay or stop the implementation.

The agreement faces widespread popular rejection, preceded by party and trade union protests, the latest of which was the dozens of sit-in in front of a gas pipeline in northern Jordan, but security services prevented the sit-in.

According to the general coordinator of the Jordanian national campaign to bring down the gas agreement Hisham Bustani that "the Constitutional Court has herself in a political subject has nothing to do with it."

Al-Bustani, in an interview with Al-Jazeera Net, refers to Article 33 of the Jordanian Constitution, paragraph (b), which says that "treaties and agreements that entail loading the state treasury of any expenses or infringing on the public or private rights of Jordanians shall not be effective unless approved by the National Assembly."

The coordinator explained that Jordan today has two positions, either interest in Israeli interests at the expense of the Kingdom or aligned with the interests of Jordan and its people, he said.

The court's decision coincided with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's announcement that he would re-annex the Jordan Valley and the northern Dead Sea in the West Bank.

Jordanian Prime Minister Omar Razzaz said the declaration posed a real threat to the future of the peace process. It would fuel the conflict, escalate the violence in the region, and violate international law and resolutions of international legitimacy.