KUWAIT CITY, Oct 2: The Court of Cassation has closed the public fund squandering case involving five employees in the Public Authority for Disabled Affairs (PADA) accused of disbursing funds to undeserving and deceased persons over eight years with a total value of KD 5 million, leading to the acquittal of the accused. Attorneys Jamal Taher Al-Khatib and Dr. Fawaz Al-Khatib, who represented most of the accused in court, refuted the circumstances of the case; thereby, confirming the invalidity of the accusation and the innocence of their clients.

Dr. Fawaz Al-Khatib pointed out that the charges of negligence and causing serious harm to public funds do not apply to the accused, explaining that even if it is proven the accused carried out the disbursement operations for the benefit of the deceased, where are the supervisory authorities whose primary role is to approve the disbursement? He wondered how the accused were left to do such operations throughout those years without interrogation or accountability.

Dr. Fawaz Al-Khatib

Meanwhile, Jamal Taher Al-Khatib asserted that innocent people should not be dragged into the fray and tarnish their reputation under the pretext of holding public employees accountable for negligence. He said accountability should be for those who made mistakes, not those who performed their work with perfection.

The court explained the grounds for its ruling; stating the legislator specified three forms of error -- negligence in performing the job, breach of duties, and abuse of authority. It added that the error defined by law is an employee’s departure from the usual behavior of an ordinary man keen on protecting the money and interests of the entity he works for, in the same manner he protects his own money.

It also confirmed that the case documents and the evidence presented did not indicate that the five defendants had any intention to harm public money, so the Public Prosecution’s declaration of the proof of error and harm was inaccurate. It concluded that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the defendants’ signatures on disability pension application forms could not be relied on, as such is considered an objective argument in assessing the evidence of the case -- a matter that cannot be raised at the Court of Cassation. It also confirmed that it is not obligated to respond to every piece of evidence once it rules on the innocence of defendants.

By Jaber Al-Hamoud, Munif Naif
Al-Seyassah/Arab Times Staff and Agencies