Suspension of judge from work in Jordanian legislation

Abstract

The decision to suspend the judge from work is considered a precautionary measure taken to achieve the public interest. Therefore, the problem of this study arises in the difficulty of achieving a balance between the interest of the Judicial Council in restraining a judge from working, the interest of the judge whose hand is suspended from work, and the adequacy of the guarantees provided by the Jordanian legislator to ensure achieving the common good.

This study aims to explain the nature of the judge’s restraint, the controls that govern the decision to restrain the judge, and the impact of this decision.

This study concluded with many results, the most important of which is that the Jordanian legislator did not specify the duration of the judge’s suspension from work. The suspension ends either with the issuance of a decision by the competent authority to cancel it, or with the judge’s return to his job, innocent or convicted, without the penalty of dismissal, or with the end of the functional relationship that links Between him and the judicial authority if he is punished with dismissal.

The study also concluded with many recommendations, the most important of which is the necessity of working to amend the text of Article (29) of the Jordanian Judicial Independence Law No. (29) of 2014 by setting the period for the judge’s suspension from work to a period not exceeding three months, similar to what the Egyptian legislator stated.

Keywords: Precautionary suspension, judges, Suspending, Judicial Council