On 14 August 1994, the Palestinian National Authority issued an administrative order (no. 94/1) through the "Department of Absentee Property" evicting Salih `Ali Barham (I.D. No. 923911010) and his family from their rented home in Jericho autonomous zone. The Department of Absentee Property and the Custodian of Absentee Property are entities established by Israel to administer lands and properties confiscated from Palestinians who were ostensibly absent from their property at some time during the 1948 war. Ironically, while the administration of Yaser `Arafat has denounced all Israeli military orders, it has selectively applied other draconian Israeli laws, as in this case.

The eviction order falsely claims that Salih `Ali Barham's rental contract had expired on 31/5/94 and that the owners and heirs to the property, residing in Jordan, "desire not to renew the contract." In fact, Mr. Barham's contract to rent the home on Yaffa Street, Jericho [block no. 33008, lot/211] remains in force through 31/5/95.

In the case of evictions by Israeli occupation forces, Israeli military orders provide that those served with eviction orders have the right to present their objections to a special Objections Committee within 15 days of the order. The PNA eviction order allowed for only one week to mount an appeal. However, there is no "objections committee" established under the PNA.

Mr. Barham's lawyer Khader Shkirat presented an objection to the Custodian Absentee Property in Jericho, Mr. Sa'ib Nadhif confirmed in a telephone conversation with Mr. Shkirat that his office was competent to receive the petition. After one month, and without consulting with the attorney, the Custodian transferred the file to the Execution Department in the Jericho Court. A subsequent PNA notice [no. 94/22, dated 21 September 1994] ordered Mr. Barham to hand over the house keys to an officer of the Palestinian Preventive Security Command, Mr. Mu'tasim Sharif Mohammed `Ali al-Ja'bari. The notice, which Mr. Barham received on 22 September, ordered him and his family to vacate within one week. They were forced to vacate on xx, and the house was taken over by the Preventive Security Command of the PNA.

The lawyers also prepared a petition to the Magistrate Court in Jericho, under Judge Mohammed Abu Gosh. One day before the one-week eviction deadline, the lawyer was in the Court paying the court fees to present the petition when he witnessed a Palestinian police officer approaching Judge Abu Gosh. The lawyer also approached the judge and asked him on which law the eviction orders were based. He replied "on Palestinian Law." The judge also informed the lawyer that this administrative procedure is the result of a "higher political decision" and not a subject for him to rule on.

The judge was correct in the sense that the Jericho Court does not formally hold the authority to hear appeals of an administrative order. The judicial system in the transition period, as under Israeli occupation, lacks a clear appeals level to challenge administrative actions by the authorities.

When the lawyer consulted with the Palestinian Justice Minister Frayh Abu Muddaayn, he affirmed that the Absentee Property Law does not exist in the areas of self-rule (Gaza Strip and Jericho) after 4 May 1994. But the minister then preemted the lawyer saying, "before you complain to me about matters in Jericho, I want to complain to you about Jericho." The minister was apparently referring to administrative practices under the Ministry of Local Affairs, which operates from there without a clear definition of authorities. The head of that ministry, Dr. Sa'eb Erakat, with considerable influence in the administration of Jericho, has said publicly that the Custodian of Absentee Property does not exist.

Palestinian officials have indicated that, in the self-rule zone of Jericho, the Jordan legal regime will provide the basis of law and legal procedure. Under Jordanian law, a citizen has the right to appeal an administrative decision within two months. This norm has been ignored in the Barham eviction case.

Jordanian landlord/tenant law also protects the tenant from arbitrary eviction, and such orders mist be carried out only under law and with due process. Israeli tenancy law also offers protection to renters who contribute significant investment and improvements to the property they occupy. This is the case with Mr. Barham, who occupied the house in a state of disrepair and renovated the property over the years.

Under the procedures previously in place in the West Bank since the Jordanian administration since 1948, cases from the Jericho Courts would normally be appealed to the District Court in Ramallah. The Chief Justice Qusay `Abdallah has recently ruled that the Gaza Court has the authority to hear appeals from Jericho; however, the minister of justice has contradicted this assertion, as the decision did not emerge from the Justice Ministry.

The PNA has yet to address several of the urgent needs of a functioning, independent judiciary. Foremost among these is the formation of a Judicial Council to resolve many practical procedural and administrative issues, such as clarifying the appeals process. In May 1994, the Legal Subcommittee of the advisory Technical Committees formally has urged the Palestinian authorities to establish such a council; however, the PNA has taken no such action to date. Lawyers and judges in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has issued numerous appeals to the Ministry of Justice to produce an official gazette of court decisions and relevant judicial developments. Such an instrument would reflect the life of emerging Palestinian law and jurisprudence. However, a gazette that clarifies the law and judicial practice is nowhere in sight at this time.

The current period of judicial ambiguity and administrative disarray has become characterized by numerous abuses of authority by the Palestinian National Authority. The Barham forced-eviction case stands as an example of the cost and potential hazards to the still-unprotected Palestine society in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.