Representatives of the Ministry of State Domains and Land Affairs announced the creation of a commission within the presidency of the government, tasked with drafting a legislative text aimed at unifying the legal framework for seizures and establishing a single structure for the management of this file.
During a listening session organized by the Commission for Productive Sectors of the National Council of Regions and Governors, it was noted that since 2011, 2,864 seizure decisions have been issued, affecting 718 properties, as well as various movable assets such as cars, bank accounts, shares in companies, and others. Much of these assets still face management difficulties due to legal, administrative problems and judicial conflicts, which has delayed their exploitation or sale, while reducing their value over time.
The speakers explained that part of this delay is due to the nature of disputes related to property rights, a constitutional right that requires compliance with all legal procedures to avoid appeals against seizure decisions and their annulment.
They pointed out that the State has managed to sell a substantial number of seized properties, thereby generating financial resources for the public treasury, while some properties that could not be sold were allocated to ministries and public institutions for use in public facilities.
The speakers affirmed that the seizure file requires a comprehensive legislative revision, notably because the current texts were drafted in an exceptional context, necessitating updating to make it a permanent legal mechanism in the fight against corruption.
They also noted that the commission’s work has repeatedly faced obstacles due to the vacancy of the commission’s chair several times, which affected the pace of handling the cases.
On this occasion, a detailed presentation was made on the management path of seized goods and assets, based on the legal framework relying on three national commissions created in 2011: the Seizures Commission, the National Commission for the Recovery of Funds Abroad Acquired Illegally, and the National Commission for the Management of Seized or Recovered Goods and Assets for the State.
Initially, the assets were frozen and placed under judicial sequestration, under the supervision of judicial custodians and analysts, under the oversight of the courts, before the creation of the Seizures Commission, noting that some assets are still today under the management of these custodians.
The management of seized assets rests on principles of transparency, competition and equal opportunity, in accordance with a procedures manual that includes internal control mechanisms, periodic monitoring and external oversight by the competent bodies.
These assets include financial values, real estate, business assets, equity stakes in companies, cars, boats, various movable properties, as well as personal rights and debts.
As part of governance, management agreements were concluded to support the commission in management and sale operations, including the transfer of management of stakes to Karama Holding, as well as agreements for managing real estate, cars, boats and financial portfolios.
During the debate, several deputies insisted on the need to speed up the processing of this case to prevent seized assets from losing value, warning against the slowness of management timelines and the multiplication of stakeholders, which leads to delays and additional costs for the State.
They also called for greater transparency of sale operations and for clarification of information to the public, especially due to questions about certain procedures and allegations of illegal seizures or sales below actual value.
The speakers confirmed that the State bears additional costs related to security and maintenance of these assets, which requires finding more effective solutions to reduce expenses and improve the profitability of management.
In this context, calls have been issued to adopt a digital platform allowing citizens to track the management path of seized assets, in order to strengthen transparency and guarantee the right to access information.
