Court of Cassation Upholds Ruling Requiring Minister of Interior and Mafraq Governor to Compensate a Domestic Worker Detained Administratively for 3.5 Years with 20,880 JOD

Court of Cassation Upholds Ruling Requiring Minister of Interior and Mafraq Governor to Compensate a Domestic Worker Detained Administratively for 3.5 Years with 20,880 JOD
Amman, Wednesday, February 26, 2025 – The Jordanian Court of Cassation has upheld the decision of the Amman Court of Appeal, issued on February 25, 2024, which mandates the Minister of Interior, in his official capacity, and the Governor of Mafraq, in his official capacity, to provide financial compensation to an Indonesian domestic worker for her administrative detention, which lasted three and a half years. The compensation amount was set at 20,880 Jordanian dinars. This decision follows ten years of litigation. 
In a statement, "Tamkeen" explained that the domestic worker, through its Legal Aid Unit, filed a civil lawsuit before the Amman Magistrate’s Court against the parties responsible for her three-and-a-half-year detention, seeking compensation for the damages she suffered as a result of this detention. According to the statement, the case was transferred to the "Amman Court of First Instance" on November 3, 2020, after it was determined that the compensation claim exceeded 10,000 JOD, thus falling under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. 
The statement further indicated that the Court of Cassation, on December 31, 2024, upheld the Amman Court of Appeal’s decision issued on February 25, 2024. The ruling clarified that the governor's responsibility automatically includes the responsibility of the Ministry of Interior, to which they report, as well as the Minister of Interior in addition to their position. This is based on Article 288/1(b) of the Jordanian Civil Code, which states that an institution or entity responsible for a government official is liable for the official’s mistakes, especially if it has direct supervisory authority over them. 
Additionally, the Court of Cassation noted that the expert report used in the case was based on clear and acceptable evidence, and no legal objections were raised to challenge its validity or credibility. Consequently, the court ruled that the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal fall within its legal jurisdiction, leaving no grounds for further appeal before the Court of Cassation.
Tamkeen’s statement sheds light on the story of an Indonesian domestic worker who arrived in Jordan in 2006 seeking employment. At the time, she was unmarried. However, she was assaulted by criminals, leading to the filing of a case against them before the Grand Criminal Court, which ultimately convicted them of the crime. Following the incident, the worker was detained by order of the Governor of Mafraq, based on a recommendation from the Family Protection Department of the Public Security Directorate, allegedly for her own protection. She remained in custody from May 8, 2012, until October 7, 2015.
The worker, who ultimately won the case in her favor, was unlawfully imprisoned for over 3.5 years without any legal justification. Through Tamkeen’s Legal Aid Unit, she filed a lawsuit against the responsible parties, seeking compensation for the damages she suffered due to her prolonged detention.
On February 25, 2024, the Amman Court of Appeal issued a ruling requiring the Minister of Interior, in his official capacity, and the Governor of Mafraq, in his official capacity, to compensate the worker with 20,880 Jordanian dinars. This decision was based on an expert report, which assessed 5,880 JOD as material damages and 15,000 JOD as moral damages, considering the severe impact on her ability to live a normal and stable life.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling stated that the governor’s decision violated the law, as it exceeded the legal powers granted to him, resulting in the worker’s unlawful imprisonment for 3.5 years, which constitutes a grave error warranting civil liability for the damages she endured due to the deprivation of her freedom without legal grounds. The court further clarified that the governor’s actions could not be considered a legitimate exercise of authority, as the error committed fell outside the scope of legal justification.
According to Tamkeen, the case went through multiple judicial stages, starting from the Amman Magistrate’s Court, then the Amman Court of First Instance, followed by the Amman Court of Appeal, and ultimately reaching the Court of Cassation.
The defense arguments on behalf of the domestic worker were based on clear legal and constitutional principles. The defense emphasized that personal freedom is protected under the Jordanian Constitution, and any violation of fundamental rights and freedoms constitutes a punishable offense under the law. Additionally, the defense cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which affirms that every individual has the right to liberty and security and explicitly prohibits arbitrary detention.
The governor’s decision to detain the worker was deemed unlawful, as there was no evidence to suggest that her presence outside of prison posed a threat to society. Furthermore, the requirement of a 3,000 JOD bail for her release raised serious concerns regarding the legitimacy of the decision and whether it aligned with the principle of protecting victims, as highlighted in Tamkeen’s statement.
According to the statement, on February 25, 2024, the Court of Appeal ruled that the responsible authorities must pay 20,880 JOD in compensation—5,880 JOD for material damages and 15,000 JOD for moral damages. This ruling was based on legal findings and a decision from the Court of Cassation, which affirmed that the worker’s detention was unlawful and exceeded the permissible limits of administrative authority.
Asma Amireh, a labor law specialist affirmed that the decision sets a legal precedent for a migrant domestic worker receiving compensation for the period of administrative detention. This ruling is based on the Jordanian Constitution, as well as international agreements that guarantee freedom, security, and protection from arbitrary detention.
Amireh stated that, according to the Crime Prevention Law, the powers granted to the governor regarding detention are defined and subject to specific conditions. These conditions require the sub-governor, when issuing a detention order, to believe that a person within their jurisdiction is about to commit a crime or assist in committing one, or is accustomed to theft, robbery, or possessing stolen goods, or habitually protects thieves, or is in a condition that makes their release without bail dangerous to the public. There must also be sufficient reasons to take action, and the individual must be brought before the sub-governor to present any reasons that may prevent them from being required to provide a guarantee. 
Tamkeen’s Executive Director, Linda Kalash, welcomed the Court of Appeal’s decision and emphasized the necessity of abolishing the Crime Prevention Law, restricting detention authority to the judiciary alone. She explained that the appellate court’s ruling to compensate the worker will pave the way for similar decisions. This case marks an important step in reassessing administrative detention in Jordan. It will also bring renewed attention to the Crime Prevention Law and its practical implementation, in addition to highlighting the significant financial burden on the state due to the detention of large numbers of individuals in prisons and correctional centers. 
Kalash stressed the importance of allowing all individuals to appeal before the administrative court, rather than limiting this right to a specific category. She also emphasized the need to support legal aid in such cases. She pointed out that when a competent court issues a release order for a detained person, they should not be subjected to administrative detention. Additionally, the period of administrative detention should be counted as part of the total sentence for those who have been administratively detained. 
Kalash stated that administrative detention violates the right to personal freedom. The executive authority, through administrative governors and their decisions, continues to exercise extensive powers in administrative detention based on the Crime Prevention Law and the Residence and Foreigners’ Affairs Law. Although the Constitutional Court has deemed this legal, it contradicts both the constitution and international conventions, which grant only the judiciary the authority to order detentions. She added that the Residence and Foreigner's Affairs Law allows administrative governors to detain and deport foreigners without being required to provide any justification.