The Responsibility of the Public Official in the Crime of Favoritism (Mediation) and Nepotism in Accordance with the Jordanian Integrity and Anti-Corruption Law

Abstract

The aim of this study was to identify the provisions related to the responsibility of the public official when violating the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Law and committing the crime offavoritism (Mediation) and nepotism, by addressing the substantive provisions for this crime and indicating the general pillars, which are legal, material and moral. In addition to the element required by the legislatorwhich is having aspecific characteristic for the perpetrator, that is being a public official. It also aims to clarify the individuals involved in the crime of nepotism and the extent of the responsibility they holdaccording to the Jordanian legislator and the sanctions determined for the perpetrator. This is done by following the descriptive and analytical approach in investigating the provisions of the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Law No. (13) of 2016.The problem of the study is summarized in the failure of the Jordanian legislation to clarify the concept of the nepotism crime and its pillars, as Article (16 / A / 7) of the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Law merely criminalizes the acceptance of favoritism (Mediation) only.The study resulted in a number of findings and recommendations, the most important of which is amending the text that address this crime to include parties involved in favoritism  (Mediation),the one who seeks favoritism (Mediation) and the mediator in the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Law, and not only to criminalize the employee who accepts the favoritism (Mediation), as is the case with other crimes. Moreover, to explain the nature of the violation of rights when committing the crime offavoritism(Mediation), because the phrase “Denying justice and revoking a right” in Jordanian legislation is a loose phrase and extends to all rights.