Kurdi’s case: Is it financial or political?

تم نشره في Sat 19 April / Apr 2014. 08:21 PM - آخر تعديل في Sat 19 April / Apr 2014. 08:24 PM

By Muhammad Aburumman

I do not how does the defense lawyer for Walid Kurdi, former minister Ibrahim Omoush, explain the court’s decision that the approval of the shipping contracts for phosphates and fertilizers damaged the phosphate company and was offset by "a benefit" achieved by the defendant and others; if such benefit is not considered a bribe, corruption, or looting of the phosphate company, what can we call it? To satisfy the angry lawyer and former minister who is mad at the media, do we call it a simple mistake, for example?!

Omoush is within his rights to make an effort to resolve the case of his client, through all legal means, including the recent financial settlement offer. But Omoush himself is aware of the big damage, politically and symbolically, that tantamount to hundreds of millions that Kurdi is accused of, which is caused by the administration of phosphate.

What Kurdi has done was one of the main points used by the political movements against the state, provided good material for the opposition, was a real nuisance to the state, and turned to become, later, one of the most important cases of corruption which provoked public opinion that watched it with keen interest.

It is not possible to separate the political dimensions from all the legal and financial dimensions in the case, and if the phosphate company is a legal person and is the aggrieved party, legally and financially, from the Kurdi’s management, the case still compromises, without any exaggeration, national security and the state itself, politically and symbolically.

Let us remind the lawyer, or the former minister, that the report of the Privatization Evaluation Committee pointed to the great imbalance and blatant interference in the process of privatization of the phosphate, that is this case.

This calls for a reminder to, also, the government; the people still believe that the state is not serious about fighting corruption. Perhaps, a financial settlement with Kurdi, without the openness and accountability of the public opinion will double the size of the damage in this case in particular, and will strengthen the previously-stated popular impression.

We know, through the statements of Omoush, that the process of financial settlement has already begun, and it is now attempting to determine the amount required of the man convicted in absentia, after the administration of the phosphate company accepted the settlement offer, hence, it is necessary for the government to detail the incidents, future steps, the settlement amounts, and the legal, political, and financial implications to this settlement to the media. Otherwise, the results of the settlement will be completely the opposite of what is hoped for, as happened with the Mawared’s case, which the Jordanian public is still unaware of; that has turned fighting corruption into a new puzzle in itself!



This article is an edited translation from the Arabic edition.