The Impact of Criminal Restrictions on Some Administrative Decisions in Jordanian Legislation (A Fundamental Analytical Study)

Abstract

The importance of this research stems from its examination of a precise legal and practical issue that intersects with the constitutional rights of individuals in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, namely the impact of "criminal records" on administrative decision-making. The problem of the study lies in the administrative expansion of relying on security clearances and criminal records as a ground for excluding individuals from their rights to employment or practicing commercial activities, without sufficient distinction between a record based on a final judgment and a mere security "request," or considering the effects of general amnesty and rehabilitation.

This research aims to analyze the legality of the "motive" (Cause) in administrative decisions based on criminal history and to clarify the limits of the administration’s discretionary power in characterizing crimes involving moral turpitude. It also highlights the role of the Jordanian administrative judiciary under Administrative Judiciary Law No. (27) of 2014 in supervising such decisions. The study adopted a descriptive-analytical approach to examine legislative texts and review the rulings of the Supreme Administrative Court.

The study reached several findings, most notably: that a criminal record does not constitute a valid legal ground for an adverse administrative decision unless it is based on a final judicial verdict, and that the General Amnesty Law No. (5) of 2024 imposes a duty on the administration to erase the administrative impact of the records covered by it. The research recommended the necessity of automating the deletion of criminal records and defining precise legislative criteria for crimes involving moral turpitude and dishonesty to prevent administrative arbitrariness.