KUWAIT CITY, Nov 13: The Constitutional Court, headed by Councilor Adel Al-Bahou, has decided to reject three direct appeals filed by the President and members of the General Assembly of the Kuwait Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) and directors of several companies to challenge the constitutionality Law no. 122/2023 regarding KCCI. The objections raised regarding the alleged unconstitutionality of Law no. 122/2023 were documented by the Clerical Section of the court on February 22, 2024. According to the press release, the contested law was issued following its approval by the National Assembly in the November meeting. 28.2023 when it was adopted in two deliberations within a single session.

This revealed the urgency and lack of deliberation, which led it to fall within the scope of suspicions of unconstitutionality affecting key provisions of the law. The appellants also argued that the law contained provisions that deviated from statutory norms, including the establishment of a transition committee to replace the current KCCI board of directors. The first appellant served as the chairman of this commission and the other appellants as its members. Consequently, they were removed from the council before the end of their mandate, which was elected by the general assembly under the previous Law of 1959. In its judgment, the Constitutional Court specified that Law no. 122/2023 contested on KCCI was issued to establish a comprehensive legal framework for KCCI, more than 60 years after its establishment.

Nonprofit

The legislature has classified KCCI as a non-profit institution with legal personality and established rules governing its powers, structure, management and provisions governing its general meeting, board of directors and funds. Recognizing KCCI’s connection to the state’s economic activities, the legislature sought to strike a balance between the rights of individuals affiliated with KCCI to manage their affairs and the state’s right to supervise and monitor its operations. The objective was to ensure the integrity of its work and activities and to verify its compliance with relevant legislation and regulations. The legislature has placed KCCI under the supervision of the competent minister and has identified specific areas that require this supervision.

This included the minister’s approval of certain actions and decisions, such as the sale, mortgage or purchase of real estate, and the acceptance of gifts or donations. In this context, the representative of the ministry is charged with presiding over the assembly, overseeing board elections and approving KCCI’s executive regulations. The submission also addressed KCCI’s refusal to accept applications for membership, its handling of attendance at the general meeting as an observer and the failure to call an extraordinary general meeting when the board failed to take action.

The court concluded that by placing KCCI under state supervision and establishing a new legislative body following this pattern, the intention was to serve the public interest. Therefore, the court emphasized that the texts relating to this supervision must be interpreted with the presumption of constitutionality without compromising the legal nature, independence and status of KCCI as a private entity governed by the general assembly and its board of directors, in accordance with the law.

The state does not impose arbitrary guardianship over the KCCI, subjugate it or replace its decision-making authority. This oversight does not amount to dominance or interference that would impede KCCI’s ability to carry out its activities. Instead, state involvement is limited to what the law explicitly provides, as specified in legal texts, and aims to prevent violations while protecting and serving the public interest. The Court stated that “The Minister’s supervision of the affairs of KCCI does not conflict with Article 130 of the Constitution, which designates the Minister’s role in overseeing the operational matters of his ministry. Although the minister’s authority derives from the decree establishing the structure and powers of his ministry, the legislature is free to assign additional responsibilities beyond those originally provided for. As such, the minister can exercise these powers within the limits granted by the legislator without violating article 130 of the Constitution.”

By Jaber Al-Hamoud Al-Seyassah/Arab Times Collective