4/8/2020
A legal article issued by a Syrian presidential decree in 2012 rendered tens of thousands of government employees, unemployed. This happened without employees even receiving their wages or end-of-service benefits, and more importantly, they were left to their fate with the accusation of being terrorists with whatever that added stigma means.
Although that article of law itself is linked to the application of a previous legal judgment, other powers granted to the prime minister, through another legal article, permitted him to dismiss employees. Additionally, these powers allowed the prime minister to easily enforce certain punishments (of possible political nature) that are not legally justifiable, targeting people or even entire regions.
Consequently, the 56-year old headmaster of the Naba’a Al-Sakhr School in the Quneitra Governorate, Mohammed Mutlaq Al-Dali, was surprised to see that he was no longer a government employee after 33 years of service. A decision was issued on June 22, 2017 by the former prime minister, Imad Khamis, dismissed him from his job and suspended his pension.
The administrative decision to dismiss Al-Dali was a clear violation by the executive branch of government committed against the Judiciary, since Al-Dali has continued to fulfil his duties even during the period when his governorate fell out of the central government control between 2014-2018.
The Human Resources department of the Quneitra Education Directorate had tried vehemently to assert that Al-Dali’s fulfilled his position’s duties (during the period of 2014-2018) through formal correspondence with the Ministry of Education, but his dismissal was not reviewed. This forced him to file a lawsuit in court, which has not been looked into to this day.
According to an official source in the State Cases Judicial Administration ( who preferred to remain anonymous) the dismissal law suites filed in relation to employees dismissal has reached approximately 40,000. That is to say that there are 40,000 former public sector employees who are awaiting justice, after the government branded them "terrorists".
Article 143: The Administrative Judiciary is the authorised body to adjudicate in all matters arising from disputes due to the application of this law, including financial disputes that could relate to wages, employees compensation and all other disputes that may be recorded between employees and the authorities.
Article 137: While upholding the provisions of the laws governing the work of the Central Authority for Control and Inspection, and the provisions of the law of the Central Financial Control Authority: The prime minister is allowed to issue decrees, based on proposals made by a committee consisting of the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment, and the head of the Central Financial Control Authority, to dismiss an employee and to terminate all their rights in accordance with the existing laws.
It is not permissible to “re-employ” the dismissed worker according to paragraph 1 of this article — regardless of the nature of such “employment” — except by a decree authorising their re-employment by the Prime Minister.
This investigation reveals that the Syrian government has violated various provisions of the Syrian Constitution as well as the basic Labour Laws No50, 2004, and Law No20, 2012, issued via a judicial act by the Syrian presidency, leading to the termination of the employment of workers illegally, and to deny them their dismissal and retirement compensation packages, in addition to filing law suites accusing some of them of neglecting their duties, which led to the displacement of thousands of employees without a source of income or livelihood.
Article 1 of Law 20
Any employee, regardless of the law or jurisdiction they are subject to, is dismissed from service and deprived of wages, salaries, compensation and all pension or retirement funds if found, by a judicial ruling, guilty without any doubt of committing any acts of terror, either by carrying out such acts, or inciting terrorism, aiding or abetting a terrorist or any form of association with a terrorist organisation, or offering terrorists material or moral support in whatever form of shape that might be.
Syrian MP Muhammad Khair al-Akkam has insisted that Article 1 of Law 20 has been overused since the beginning of the war in Syria. Al-Akkam has called for the referral of dismissed employees cases to the relevant and appropriate courts instead.
Huda Al-Sawaf, head of the State Cases Judicial Administration, insists that "those dismissed from their employment, particularly those who were in the besieged areas, obtained judicial rulings enabling them to return to their work and recover their financial dues in accordance with the law.” On the other hand, Sawaf indicated that those that had to leave their jobs as a result of the troubles that took place have been returned to their employment. However, those who travelled abroad or fled were dismissed from their service and sentenced to one month in prison. Sawaf was also quick to acknowledge that there may have been potential injustices committed against some employees working and living in the besieged areas.
According to the director of the Labour Legislation Department at the Ministry of Administrative Development, Ghiath Fatoum, the dismissals were of a “political” nature. Fatoum explained this by saying that: “The employees are dismissed without disclosing the causes for their dismissal and can only be returned by a decision signed by the Prime Minister. This unlawfully deprives employees of their right to work in the public service without legal justification.
Therefore, the decision to dismiss employees in this manner is arbitrary and unjustified. Further, they are contrary to what the procedural administrative decisions should be, according to legal advisor Bashir Ezz al-Din. This issue is a clear violation of the constitution, as Ezz al-Din indicates that linking the reappointment of an employee to the approval of the Prime Minister is a denial of the constitutional right that affirms that all citizens are given equal employment opportunities in the public sector, as stated in Article 26.
Al-Dali’s continued his work during the years of the armed factions’ control of his governorate (Quneitra) with the approval of the (local) security committee and the (new) governor, and he asked all teachers in the governorate to carry on working. Al-Dali explains that, just like him, about 70 teachers in the same governorate were dismissed from service. The reason for his dismissal in his opinion is due to some malicious reports filed against him by affiliates of a certain political party (i.e. affiliates of the ruling Baath Party in Syria) accusing him of carrying out acts against the state, and belonging to a terrorist organization. Subsequently, Al-Dali’s case was transferred to the Criminal Court. "After 33 years of service, I became a terrorist!" he says sarcastically as he awaits a just verdict in his case. Today Al-Dali relies on agricultural work to survive despite it being “not worth his while” to obtain a modest income to spend on his eight children. The fact that his children are still in education has placed immense financial burdens beyond Al-Dali’s abilities.
Under the accusation of “unlawfully abandoning employment”, Alaa, a 50-year old teacher from the suburb of Douma (close to Damascus), was dismissed from his job and transferred to a criminal court despite the fact that he did not actually quit his job. Douma had fallen under the control of the “Islamic Army” and was besieged for three years. During this time, Alaa did not leave the city once to even collect his salary out of fear of being arrested. After the Syrian army regained control of the city, he went to the Damascus Education Directorate to collect his salary for those years, only to be surprised by the decision to dismiss him.
The crime of leaving work in Syrian law is regulated by Article 364 of the Penal Code.
Anyone who accepts to work for the state or for one of its public institutions according to an appointment issued by that body, and receives a fee for this work, is considered an employee of the state, and s/he must adhere to the regulations and laws, and abide by the entity to which her/his appointment has been made.
The law outlines a punishment of three to five years imprisonment, and a fine of no less than the employee’s monthly salary with a full year's compensation for those that leave their work in the public sector before obtaining a clearance for their resignation. The law also applies to those who have been deemed “technically resigned” due to absence from work (for a duration of 15 days or more).
Some of those affected by these decisions have resorted to Parliament to submit their complaints. However, since 2016 the number of these complaints has not exceeded 31, and have focused on returning to work and reversing the dismissals. It is assumed that a committee will follow up on these complaints with the government and with the appropriate administrative authority headed by the chairman, Abboud Al-Shawakh.
However, according to the head of the complaints office, Nabil Naji, "there was no decision taken to deal with these complaints, in terms of rehiring or compensating the employees." Further, Naji claims that "there are those who come to us with a judicial decision that allow the employee to return to work, however such decision are not implemented. At this point, we request the implementation of the decision from the cabinet on behalf of the employee. Subsequently, such decision get implemented."
Lawyer Reda Haidar attributes the low number of complaints submitted to Parliament to a "lack of confidence" in the institution, as most people feel that filing a complaint to parliament are to no avail.
Dismissal from service was not restricted to employees in areas of conflict or besieged governorates. Samira Nofal, 53, employee of the Land Reclamation Directorate in Sweida, was dismissed from service after 28 years of government work, on charges of "weakening the national feeling, undermining the state's prestige, and weakening the psyche of the nation.” Nofal indicates “the decision did not provide a clear reason for dismissal, but the administrative court’s decision stipulated these charges.” Nofal filed a lawsuit with the Administrative Court in Suwayda, and obtained a ruling to reverse the charges against her and return to her previous employment, while compensating her with 25% of the value of her salary for the period during which she was suspended from work. However, the Department of State Cases appealed the decision and transferred her case to the Administrative Court in Damascus. The verdict confirmed Nofal’s compensation for her pension entitlements, but this decision was not upheld by her employer as they refused to implement the judicial decision.
A Ruling People's Assembly member expresses his annoyance at charges such as those brought against Samira, and the way in which the file “dismissal from service” is administered, which “should be managed through the competent judiciary only, and not through the Prime Minister.” He stressed that the government must respect the rule of law, the principle Dismissal of powers, and the enforcement of concluded judicial decisions.
Member of parliament Akam expressed his annoyance at charges such as those brought against Nofal, and the way in which the case “dismissal from service” is administered, which “should be managed through the appropriate authority, and not through the Prime Minister.” He stressed that the government must respect the rule of law, the principle of segregation of powers, and enforce the decisions of the appropriate judicial authority.
Lawyer Haydar stresses that "the failure to pay pension entitlements upon the decision to dismiss an employee is against the law." Additionally, those that fail to pay pensions are actively abusing their position of power and it is within the dismissed employee’s right to file a lawsuit against them. Further, this violation may incur a criminal penalty and imprisonment.
However, evidence suggests that none of the dismissed employees filed lawsuits of this kind against any officials, with the exception of Nofal, who specifically accused her manager and the Minister of Agriculture. The outcome of the lawsuit was known in advance, as she was aware that it would not affect the change in the results of her case and the accused parties were not imprisoned.
MP Akam suggests that Article 137 has been misused and employees have been dismissed for reasons unrelated to their performance. Further, he indicates that even if an employee is guilty of an offense, they must be referred to the appropriate judiciary, and not the executive authority, to rule on the matter, which is the case today.
As for Legal Adviser Ezz El-Din, he believes that in order to achieve justice for those dismissed, certain amendments in the laws must be made. Specifically, amending the "unconstitutional" text in Article 137, "which deprives the judiciary of extending its control over the public administration." However, according to Ezz El-Din, this requires "boldness" from the State Council.
This investigation has raised many questions which have been addressed to the government. However, for two months, its press office refused to refer this investigation to the persons authorised to respond.
The response from Morshed Molouk, the head of the government press office, was that "all of those dismissed are armed and have security cases raised against them.” However, this contradicts clearly the facts collected and documented by this investigation.
The Ministry of Education, the largest government agency to have subjected its employees to dismissals, declined to answer our questions. Further, the Minister of Education, Imad Al-Azab, justified his decision by claiming that "the information contained within the questions presented deal with confidential matters that cannot be published. The acts of dismissals and the reasons behind them are also of a confidential nature that should not be published."