Ammon News - Former Minister and Constitutional Expert Dr. Nofan Al-Ajarmah said that the constitutional oath is the oath stipulated by the Constitution, and related to the Head of State, His Majesty the King, where the King swears upon assuming the throne before the National Assembly, which convenes under the chairmanship of the President of the Senate, to (preserve the Constitution and be loyal to the nation) in accordance with the provisions of Article (29) of the Constitution. Hence came the philosophy of linking authority with responsibility, by granting His Majesty the King some powers, so how can he (preserve the Constitution and be loyal to the nation) without real authority that enables him to bear constitutional responsibility in order to achieve the interest of the state.
The constitutional oath includes the Prime Minister and the Ministers, where the Prime Minister and the Ministers take the following oath before His Majesty the King before assuming their duties: "I swear by God Almighty to be loyal to the King, to preserve the Constitution, to serve the nation and to carry out the duties entrusted to me with honesty", in accordance with the provisions of Article (43) of the Constitution.
The constitutional oath of the members of the National Assembly, both its chambers (the Senate and the House of Representatives), includes that each member of the Senate and the House of Representatives, before starting his work, must take an oath before his council, the text of which is: “I swear by Almighty God to be loyal to the King and the country, to uphold the Constitution, to serve the nation and to carry out the duties entrusted to me properly,” in accordance with the provisions of Article (80) of the Constitution. The President and members of the Constitutional Court, before assuming their duties, take an oath before His Majesty the King, the text of which is: “I swear by Almighty God to be loyal to the King and the country, to uphold the Constitution, to serve the nation and to carry out the duties entrusted to me faithfully, in accordance with the provisions of Article (61) of the Constitution.
We note that the constitutional texts have specified the following controls for this oath:
First: The persons to whom the text applies or those addressed by it have been specified, whether they are appointed or elected, and the manner of performing this oath has been specified, in terms of place and time, the wording and procedures contained in the constitutional text, and before the person or entity required to perform it The oath before her.
Second: The oath must be recited by the person concerned and before he assumes his duties and job responsibilities - before the person or entity specified by the constitutional text - and the oath must be recited with the same words, expressions and phrases mentioned in the constitutional text, and this text may not be changed or altered, by addition or subtraction, under any circumstances or for any reason. If the oath is recited otherwise by the person concerned, his performance of the legal oath is in violation of the constitution and does not produce its legal effects. How can this person swear to uphold the constitution and at the beginning of his work violate it? This is a contradiction that the constitution does not approve.
Third: If the oath is recited in a manner that violates the constitutional text, such that the person concerned changes some words or phrases, or adds to it what is not part of it, or reduces it, and this was done in good faith and out of mere error, confusion, fear or otherwise, he must be alerted to this and asked to repeat the oath in the correct form, and he will certainly comply with that because the mistake was out of good faith.
However, if the oath is recited incorrectly, but with bad intentions or intentionally or for a purpose in that person’s mind, such that it adds to the oath phrases expressing his religious or personal beliefs or introduces a word upon a word or a phrase upon a phrase in the oath, then this person must be alerted to such an error on the part of the person or entity before whom he is taking the oath. If he responds to that and recites the oath in accordance with the rules, then there is no problem, and his performance of this oath is correct and produces its legal effects. However, if this person refuses to recite the legal oath as stipulated in the constitution, and insists on violating the text, then this person has committed the first violation of the constitution, and this oath has not yet produced its legal effects, and he may not carry out his work under any circumstances for the following reasons:
1. This person has committed the first violation of the constitution, and all the legislation regulating his work requires him to respect the constitution and not violate it.
2. Refusal to take the oath reveals his disloyalty to the state, represented by its constitution, and to its ruling system. The purpose of taking the oath is to know the person's loyalty to the state to which he belongs or in which he will work. Loyalty as a condition for appointment to public positions in some countries takes three forms. It may take the form of loyalty to the job itself, such as the individual maintaining work secrets and being loyal to it, and violating that constitutes a disciplinary crime punishable by law. This is called job loyalty. Loyalty may take a political form when it takes into account the political and social philosophies embraced by the state, which is the establishment of what is called political loyalty. Finally, his loyalty may be to the state and the ruling system in the country, which is called loyalty to the ruling authority. The fact that an employee or official carries out orders in accordance with the policy of the state and the existing government is not enough to say that the employee has performed his duty. He must commit in his private life to making his behavior consistent with this loyalty. The minimum is not to attack the state system in private sessions or public meetings, and not to do anything that harms the reputation of the state at home or abroad. Otherwise, he must retire from public office.
3. Refusal to take the oath reveals his lack of interest and seriousness in performing his duties and job responsibilities that he undertakes after the decision to appoint him, and his lack of respect for them and his commitment to implementing them as regulated by the legislator, and his failure to assume the responsibilities of the public office with sincerity, honesty and honor without bias towards anyone or discrimination between people.
4. Including some phrases in the oath may reveal that the person is involving himself in political, religious, sectarian, racist or regional considerations that may conflict with the performance of the public office, and with the state's policy and its major goals and objectives represented in preserving its public order, internal and external security and its relations with other countries and peoples.
Accordingly, reciting the oath contrary to the wording and procedures stipulated in the constitutional text, and before the person or entity before whom the oath is required, is likely to lead to the initiation of disciplinary responsibility