According to a new amendment to the Judicial Implementation Law, a travel ban order issued against an expatriate worker does not prevent his deportation.
The law was amended in this regard, according to Al-Watan newspaper. It read: "The issuance of the travel ban order, in accordance with Paragraph 1 of this article, will not hinder the execution of the deportation order."
Before the amendment, Article 46 of the law stated that if an insolvent fails either to implement the order to make payment of a debt or to disclose what he has of sufficient funds to pay the debt, within a period of five days from the date of notifying the debtor of the implementation order, or from the date on which the decision is published in one of the newspapers about the default of payment, then the debtor is considered as procrastinating and then the implementation judge orders a number of measures including the travel ban. Such a scenario created a contradiction between the implementation decision and the deportation decision, as the deportation decision is suspended until the travel ban imposed on the person is lifted, which usually takes place only after the person fulfills payment of the defaulted amount.
The article in its previous form constitutes duplicity between the rights of individuals and the preservation of public order, according to Abdul Karim Al-Shammari, lawyer and legal consultant. The legislator, with his authority, prioritized maintaining public order over other considerations," he said while noting that the law has been amended frequently over the years.
Some of the financial bonds submitted to the Implementation Courts by their owners were originally fictitious, since the applicant claims large sums that were not commensurate with the expatriate's financial solvency. When the applicant meets the conditions required in this regard, the court will decide whether to enforce the order against the debtor, considering that the petitioner's claim may have been a result of a commercial cover-up between the two parties.
