KUWAIT CITY, Nov 13: The Constitutional Court, headed by Counselor Adel Al-Bahou, has ruled to reject three direct appeals filed by the chairman and members of the General Assembly of the Kuwait Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) and the directors of several companies to challenge the constitutionality of Law No. 122/2023 regarding KCCI. The appeals filed regarding the alleged unconstitutionality of Law No. 122/2023 were documented by the court’s Clerical Department on February 22, 2024. According to the statement, the contested law was issued following its approval by the National Assembly in a session held on November 28, 2023 when it was passed in two deliberations during a single session.

This revealed the urgency and lack of deliberation, which led it to fall into the circle of suspicions of unconstitutionality that affected the key provisions within the law. Also, the appellants contended that the law included provisions that deviated from legislative norms, including the establishment of a transitional committee to replace the current board of directors of KCCI. The first appellant served as chairman of this committee, and the other appellants as its members. Consequently, they were removed from the board before the end of their term, which was chosen by the general assembly under the previous 1959 Law. On the grounds of its ruling, the Constitutional Court stated that the contested Law No. 122/2023 concerning KCCI was issued to establish a comprehensive legal framework for KCCI, more than 60 years after its founding.

Non-profit

The legislator classified KCCI as a non-profit institution with a legal personality and set the rules that regulate its powers, structure, management, and provisions governing its general assembly, board of directors, and funds. Recognizing KCCI’s connection to the state’s economic activities, the legislator sought to strike a balance between the rights of individuals affiliated with KCCI to manage its affairs and the state’s right to oversee and monitor its operations. The objective was to ensure the integrity of its work and activities and verify its compliance with the relevant legislation and regulations. The legislator subjected KCCI to the supervision of the competent minister and outlined specific areas requiring this oversight.

This included the minister’s approval for certain actions and decisions, such as the sale, mortgage, or purchase of immovable property, as well as the acceptance of gifts or donations. In this context, the ministry’s representative is tasked with presiding over the assembly, overseeing the elections for the board of directors, and approving KCCI’s executive regulations. The submission also addressed KCCI’s refusal to accept membership applications, its handling of general assembly attendance as an observer, and its failure to convene an extraordinary general assembly when the board of directors does not take action.

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

The state does not impose arbitrary guardianship over KCCI, subject it to subordination, or replace its decision-making authority. This supervision does not equate to domination or interference that would hinder KCCI’s ability to carry out its activities. Instead, the state’s involvement is limited to what the law explicitly requires, as specified in the legal texts, and is intended to prevent violations while protecting and serving the public interest. The court affirmed that “The minister’s supervision of KCCI’s affairs does not conflict with Article 130 of the Constitution, which designates the minister’s role in overseeing his ministry’s operational matters. Although the minister’s authority originates from the decree establishing the structure and competencies of his ministry, the legislator is free to assign additional responsibilities beyond those initially outlined. As such, the minister can exercise these powers within the scope granted by the legislator without violating Article 130 of the Constitution.”

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