Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 189

Summary: - The jurisdictional authority of the Permanent Investigation Committee for the Trial of Ministers and thereafter the Ministers Court. Its condition: an accusation against the minister. Its establishment: a report or reasoned request from a person with standing, encompassing all facts attributed to him and identifying the minister by name without ambiguity. The nature of this condition: a procedural restriction. - An accusation against a minister does not arise in fact or in law unless sufficient evidence exists against him for his trial before the Ministers Court with the principal offenders or accomplices. - Personal knowledge of public events affecting the minister or surrounding him with criminal accusations or suspicions does not provide a sufficient basis to replace a legal report. Consequence: the Public Prosecution exercises all its powers if no minister is among the principal offenders or accomplices. - The decision of the Investigation Committee for the Trial of Ministers to close the investigation for reasons preventing proceedings from continuing. Consequence: severance of the connection between the charges attributed to the minister and those attributed to the other accused persons. Example concerning the Committee’s closure of the investigation in respect of the minister for insufficient evidence and the Public Prosecution’s referral of the other accused persons to the Criminal Court. Rule: The first-instance judgment, whose reasons were adopted and which was supplemented and amended by the challenged judgment, addressed the appellant’s plea that the action was inadmissible because it was brought otherwise than through the procedure prescribed by law, the incident falling outside the competence of the Public Prosecution and the jurisdiction of the ordinary judiciary and within the competence of the two bodies provided for in Decree-Law No. 35 of 1990 concerning the Trial of Ministers, on the basis that the incident concerned five accused persons, including the former Minister of Oil. It rejected this plea on the ground that the Public Prosecution had brought the four accused persons named in the indictment dated 28 February before the criminal court, specifying therein the description of the offenses and acts attributed to the accused persons and attaching a list of the evidence for the prosecution. Accordingly, the case was properly brought before the court through the procedure prescribed by law, and this court has jurisdictional authority to hear it. The jurisdictional authority of the Permanent Investigation Committee for the Trial of Ministers and thereafter the Ministers Court over any principal offenders or accomplices is conditional upon an accusation against the minister. For such an accusation to arise, there must initially be a report or request from a person with standing, which must be reasoned, encompass all facts attributed to him, and identify the minister by name without ambiguity. This is a necessary procedural restriction and constitutes the means prescribed by law for bringing the matter before the Investigation Committee for the Trial of Ministers. An accusation against the minister does not arise in fact or in law unless sufficient evidence exists against him preparatory to trying him before the competent court with the principal offenders or accomplices. Accordingly, there is no basis for the Public Prosecution to refer a report submitted to it to the Investigation Committee for the Trial of Ministers if it does not name a specific minister, because personal knowledge of public events affecting the minister or surrounding him with criminal accusations or suspicions does not provide a sufficient basis to replace a legal report. This suffices for the Public Prosecution to exercise all its powers under the general rules in respect of principal offenders or accomplices if no minister is among them. Moreover, if, upon submission of a report against a minister, the Investigation Committee for the Trial of Ministers decides to close the investigation because no offense exists, because of insufficient evidence, invalidity of procedures, or any other reason preventing proceedings from continuing, that decision entails severance of the connection between the charges attributed to the minister and those attributed to the other accused persons. This was confirmed by the Investigation Committee for the Trial of Ministers when it issued Decision No. 1 of 2001 at the hearing of 30 October 2007, closing the investigation into the suspicions raised against the former Minister of Oil ................ for insufficient evidence. The competence of the Permanent Investigation Committee for the Trial of Ministers thereby ceased, and the alleged connection between the charges brought against the four accused persons and those brought against the minister no longer existed, particularly since the complaint submitted by the chairman of the board of directors of the victim company, dated 7 January 1993, to the Public Prosecutor, requesting investigations into certain financial irregularities, did not name any minister or specific accused person. The Public Prosecution considered that it possessed original competence over that complaint and that the facts of this case, with their sufficient evidence, justified referring them to the Criminal Court possessing jurisdictional authority pursuant to the indictment dated 28 February 1998.