Ereifej & Partners International Law Firm, Chicago commercial center, Amman (2026)

10/10/2026

Investment in Jordan: Between Incentives and Legal Certainty

By Dr. Haytham Ereifej, Attorney-at-Law

An investment project may benefit from generous incentives, yet its economic viability can deteriorate before operations even begin. A delayed license, a location that fails to meet regulatory requirements, or a contract that leaves responsibility for delays unresolved can significantly affect the project's prospects. A sound investment decision must therefore begin with a careful assessment of the relationship between licensing requirements, investment incentives, and contractual obligations, and their implications for project costs, operational timelines, and bankability.

Jordan's Investment Environment Law No. 21 of 2022 and Investment Environment Regulation No. 7 of 2023, as amended, constitute key components of the country's investment framework. However, a comprehensive legal assessment requires examining these provisions alongside company, tax, labor, environmental, and sector-specific legislation. Every investment project requires a clear legal roadmap identifying its corporate structure, applicable foreign ownership restrictions, if any, land-use rights, necessary approvals, and the conditions governing the granting and continued enjoyment of investment incentives.

Such a legal roadmap is particularly important before purchasing land, importing equipment, or entering into long-term contractual commitments. Company registration does not necessarily establish that a proposed location is suitable for the intended activity, while preliminary approvals may remain subject to additional conditions before operations can commence. Accordingly, contractual obligations should be aligned with the project's development stages, with appropriate provisions addressing licensing delays or refusals, the treatment of advance payments, and the parties' rights to terminate agreements or extend contractual deadlines.

Consider an investor who leases premises and purchases equipment, only to discover that commencing operations requires substantial modifications to the property or an additional regulatory approval. Rental and financing costs would continue accumulating before the project generates any revenue. Such risks can be mitigated through preliminary legal due diligence and by making major financial commitments conditional upon obtaining essential approvals, while clearly allocating responsibility for securing them.

Against this background, I propose introducing a formal preliminary regulatory assessment issued through coordination among the relevant authorities. This assessment would identify the licenses, fees, conditions, and procedural requirements applicable to a proposed investment project. Its legal effect, validity period, the consequences of an investor's reliance upon it, and the circumstances permitting its amendment following changes in project information or legislation should all be clearly regulated. Official regulatory information becomes a reliable planning instrument only when its legal implications are sufficiently defined.

I also propose establishing enforceable deadlines for deciding complete licensing applications, clearly identifying when those deadlines begin, limiting permissible grounds for suspending them, and requiring the competent authority to request missing documents or information in a consolidated manner and provide reasoned decisions when rejecting applications. A system of deemed approval could be considered for precisely defined low-risk activities, while excluding approvals relating to public health, safety, and environmental protection. An expedited administrative appeal mechanism should also be available to address unjustified delays.

From a procedural perspective, investors need a unified electronic platform displaying the status of each approval, the authority responsible, the remaining processing time, and the reasons for any delay. Interagency coordination must rest on clearly defined powers and an effective mechanism for resolving conflicting administrative positions. Publishing performance indicators and ensuring consistent service standards across Jordan's governorates would further promote accountability, administrative transparency, and equal treatment of investors.

With respect to investment incentives, a distinction must be drawn between initial eligibility and the conditions required to retain those benefits. I propose a unified incentive determination specifying the benefits granted, their duration, the beneficiary's obligations, and the consequences of changing the project's activity, disposing of assets, or breaching applicable conditions. A formal written interpretation mechanism would provide additional legal certainty. Any recovery of incentives following noncompliance should be proportionate to the seriousness of the breach, with appropriate opportunities for corrective action and administrative appeal.

Investment incentives should also be linked to transparent and measurable criteria, including job creation, workforce training, local value added, and economic development in disadvantaged regions. Investors must understand how these criteria will be assessed from the outset, while the government must regularly evaluate their outcomes. The fiscal cost of incentives should produce demonstrable economic and social benefits while maintaining fair competition among businesses.

Legislative stability represents another essential consideration. Appropriate legal protections should reflect the scale of an investment and the nature of potential harm, while reasonable transitional periods should accompany regulatory changes that impose substantial new obligations. Nevertheless, the financial consequences of legislative changes for existing projects must be distinguished from the state's legitimate responsibility to strengthen protections for workers, the environment, and public health. Regulatory impact assessments, prior consultation, and clearly defined transitional arrangements can help reconcile these interests, improving investment predictability without restricting the state's legitimate regulatory authority.

In the energy sector, legal due diligence should focus particularly on licensing, grid connection, power purchase agreements, and the alignment of their respective timelines with financing and construction contracts. In public-private partnership (PPP) projects, special attention must be given to responsibility for land availability and permits, demand risks, changes in law, and compensation and termination mechanisms. I recommend developing model contractual provisions and risk-allocation matrices, accompanied by proper assessment of public financial commitments and enforceable standards governing service quality, continuity, and equitable access.

This framework should be complemented by a specialized investment grievance mechanism operating within defined deadlines and issuing reasoned decisions, without prejudice to the right of access to the courts. At the contractual level, dispute resolution provisions must be carefully drafted. Where arbitration is legally permissible and agreed upon, the agreement should clearly determine its scope, applicable rules, seat, language, and arrangements for enforcing arbitral awards. Effective legal protection ultimately depends on dispute resolution mechanisms appropriate to the parties and the nature of their contractual obligations.

Before making substantial financial commitments, investors should obtain documented answers to several fundamental questions: Does the proposed activity and location satisfy applicable legal requirements? Which approvals are necessary, and how long should they take? What conditions govern the continued enjoyment of incentives? Who bears the risks associated with delays and regulatory changes? And how can contractual and statutory rights be enforced in the event of a dispute?

These answers connect legal due diligence directly to financial feasibility, allowing investors to identify risks at an early stage and determine whether the proposed transaction requires restructuring or a reassessment of its costs.

Strengthening Jordan's investment environment requires clear legal rules, disciplined administrative procedures, balanced contractual arrangements, and incentives measured by their actual outcomes. The success of this framework should be reflected in sustainable projects, stable employment opportunities, and economic development extending across the governorates, while safeguarding fair competition, environmental standards, and public resources.

Legal certainty is not merely an additional investment advantage. It is a fundamental means of reducing investment risk and providing the confidence necessary for long-term capital commitments.

01/10/2026

Part of the Ereifej & Partners International Law Firm team was pleased to participate in the celebration of the National Day of the Republic of Korea, upon the kind invitation of His Excellency the Ambassador of the Republic of Korea.

The occasion provided a valuable opportunity to meet and engage with a number of diplomats representing embassies in the Kingdom, as well as business leaders from Jordan and abroad.

We greatly appreciate the kind invitation and the opportunity to strengthen professional and international relations in an atmosphere of friendship and mutual respect.

22/09/2026

I was honored to deliver a workshop on Human Rights in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) during the Advocates Asia Conference, held in Bali, Indonesia, from September 17–21, 2026.
The workshop provided an opportunity to discuss key human rights challenges facing the region, share experiences, and explore the role of legal professionals in promoting human dignity, protecting fundamental freedoms, and strengthening the rule of law.

11/09/2026

Trump Played It Smart: $5,000 for a Republican Victory Is a Campaign Promise, Not Vote Buying

By Dr. Haytham Munir Ereifej

President Donald Trump’s promise of $5,000 for every adult American if Republicans win control of both the House and the Senate may initially sound like something dangerously close to buying votes.

The political message is certainly blunt: Republicans win, Americans get money.

For many voters, and even for some lawyers unfamiliar with the precise structure of U.S. federal election law, that formula may blur the distinction between a lawful campaign promise and an unlawful financial inducement.

Yet the legal picture is more complicated.

Trump played it smart.

He moved politically close to the boundary separating an electoral promise from a financial reward for voting, while framing the proposal in a way that makes it difficult, on the facts currently known, to characterize it as criminal vote buying.

The key federal provision is 18 U.S.C. § 597, part of Chapter 29 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which deals with elections and political activities.

Section 597, entitled “Expenditures to Influence Voting,” prohibits offering or making an expenditure to a person in consideration of that person voting, withholding a vote, or voting for or against a particular candidate.

The legal concept is relatively straightforward:

Money in exchange for an individual vote may constitute a crime.

But Trump did not frame his promise in those terms.

He did not say: “Vote Republican and I will pay you $5,000.”

Nor did he say that only Republican voters would qualify for the money.

Instead, the proposal was presented as a future governmental benefit that would become possible if Republicans secured control of Congress.

That distinction is critical.

If the program were enacted as a general law, a voter who supported Democrats could theoretically receive the same $5,000 as a Republican voter. The individual citizen would therefore receive the money because he or she qualified under a public program — not because the government could prove how that person voted.

That makes the proposal fundamentally different from a classic vote-buying scheme.

Another provision, 18 U.S.C. § 600, raises a more complicated question.

Section 600 concerns promises of employment or other benefits made as consideration, favor, or reward for political activity or for supporting or opposing a candidate or political party.

Because the statute refers broadly to “any other benefit,” a major cash payment publicly linked to Republican electoral success naturally invites legal scrutiny.

But once again, the decisive issue is the nature of the condition attached to the benefit.

Trump’s proposal, as presently described, is not: support the Republican Party and you personally receive money.

It is: if Republicans obtain sufficient political power, they will attempt to enact a program from which adult Americans may benefit.

That is not merely clever wording. It reflects a fundamental feature of democratic politics.

Political parties routinely promise economic benefits.

They promise tax cuts, higher pensions, debt relief, healthcare subsidies, increased social spending, housing assistance, student-loan relief and family benefits.

Such proposals are designed, quite openly, to persuade citizens to vote for the party offering them.

Yet that does not automatically transform them into electoral bribery.

Otherwise, almost every economic campaign platform could potentially be criminalized.

The difference lies in the legal mechanism.

If a voter receives a benefit because he voted for a particular candidate, that may constitute unlawful vote buying.

If a voter receives a benefit because a democratically elected legislature enacted a generally applicable law, the situation is normally one of public policy rather than bribery.

Trump has simply made that traditional political mechanism far more direct.

Instead of promising voters a complicated tax reform whose benefits may appear years later, the message is instantly understandable:

Republicans win. You get $5,000.

Politically, it is extraordinarily powerful.

Legally, however, the promise remains separated from direct vote buying by one crucial element: the money is not expressly conditioned upon the individual voter proving political loyalty or showing how he cast his ballot.

There is also a practical constitutional and legislative reality that cannot be ignored.

A president cannot simply decide to distribute thousands of dollars to hundreds of millions of Americans by personal decree. A program of this magnitude would require congressional authorization, a lawful funding mechanism, appropriations or another statutory basis, and an administrative structure capable of implementing it.

Its total cost could potentially exceed one trillion dollars, depending on the number of eligible recipients and the structure of the program.

This reinforces the legal characterization of the proposal, at least for now, as a promise of future public policy, not a completed financial bargain between a candidate and a voter.

But Trump is walking close to the line.

The legal conclusion could change quickly if the political message changes.

There is a major difference between saying:

“If Republicans win, Americans will receive $5,000,”

and saying:

“Vote Republican and you will receive $5,000.”

The distinction may appear small politically, but it is enormous legally.

If eligibility for the payment were ever conditioned upon voting Republican, demonstrating partisan support, participating in campaign activity or otherwise proving political loyalty, the arrangement could enter much more dangerous territory under federal election law.

For now, however, the more persuasive legal view is that this is not direct vote buying.

It is an aggressive, highly personalized and unusually transparent campaign promise.

And that is precisely why the strategy is so politically effective.

Trump played it smart.

He placed the ballot box and the voter’s wallet in the same political conversation while preserving a narrow but crucial legal distance between them.

06/08/2026

When the Sea Becomes Safer Than Home

By Dr. Haytham Ereifej

The images of large numbers of young Moroccans risking their lives by swimming toward the cities of Ceuta and Melilla should not be viewed merely as a border problem or an isolated attempt at irregular migration. They should be understood as an alarm bell sounding across the entire Arab world.

What drives a young person to leave behind their family and homeland and risk drowning, arrest, or deportation in search of an opportunity in a distant country? Why does the sea, despite all its dangers, appear less cruel than remaining at home?

The figures show that the desire to migrate is no longer an individual or exceptional phenomenon. United Nations reports indicate that the number of migrants and refugees originating from Arab countries reached approximately 37 million in 2024. Arab Barometer surveys also reveal that thoughts of migration are widespread among young people across many Arab countries, with some expressing a willingness to take irregular routes despite being fully aware of the dangers involved.

Economic hardship remains one of the main drivers. The International Labour Organization has estimated youth unemployment in the Middle East and North Africa at approximately 24.5 percent, nearly twice the global average. Yet even this figure reflects only part of the problem. Many young people are employed in low-paid, temporary, or informal jobs that do not match their education or qualifications and provide neither social security nor adequate protection.

Migration, however, is not caused by unemployment alone. Arab youth are not simply searching for higher salaries. They are searching for a state that respects their abilities, protects their dignity, guarantees equality before the law, and offers genuine opportunities for advancement free from favouritism, nepotism, and discrimination.

When young people feel that education and hard work are not enough to secure employment, that opportunities are distributed according to connections and influence, and that the law is not applied equally to everyone, migration is transformed in their minds from a personal choice into a means of survival.

International reports on the rule of law and human rights point to serious challenges across large parts of the Arab region. These include concerns regarding judicial independence, corruption, the protection of fundamental rights, freedom of expression and association, and the rights of religious, ethnic, and linguistic minorities.

Human rights studies also highlight significant gaps between legal provisions and their implementation in practice. As a result, some citizens feel that their rights are not permanent guarantees but privileges that may vary according to their identity, social position, or political connections.

Arab countries cannot all be placed in the same category, nor can it be claimed that everyone considering migration is directly experiencing persecution or abuse. Nevertheless, it is difficult to deny the connection between the growing desire to leave and declining trust in institutions, limited economic and political prospects, and a weakening sense of justice and equal opportunity.

The greatest contradiction lies in the populist rhetoric that attacks the West every morning, accusing it of moral decline, conspiracy, and hostility toward our values, while large numbers of our young people spend every evening dreaming of reaching it.

We criticise Western societies, yet we send our children to their universities, deposit our money in their banks, seek treatment in their hospitals, rely on their courts, and request residence and protection there whenever life becomes unbearable in our own countries.

Young people do not migrate because they hate their homelands. They migrate because they want a state that respects human dignity, rewards hard work, protects freedom, provides decent employment, and places the law above everyone.

Indeed, the young person most deeply attached to their country may be the one who suffers most when they discover that they are unable to build a future within it.

Walls, patrols, and punishments alone will not stop migration. They may delay it or force migrants to seek different routes, but they will not address its root causes.

Reducing irregular migration begins with creating decent employment opportunities, improving wages and social protection, combating corruption and favouritism, strengthening judicial independence, guaranteeing public freedoms, protecting minority rights, and restoring confidence that competence and hard work can still build a future at home.

Instead of blaming those who take to the sea, we must ask the more difficult question: Who made a young person at the beginning of their life believe that the possibility of drowning at sea is more merciful than continuing to live without work, justice, or hope?

25/07/2026

Shorts Are Not Jordan’s Real Problem

By Dr. Haytham Ereifej

Voices have recently grown louder in Parliament and across some media platforms, calling for restrictions on certain forms of clothing in public places, including shorts and other garments that may not conform to the personal, religious or social preferences of some individuals.

Everyone has the right to hold their own beliefs and to choose the lifestyle and clothing they consider appropriate for themselves and their families. The problem begins when personal conviction is transformed into a demand for binding legislation, and when some attempt to impose their own preferences on society as a whole through the force of law.

The question that must be asked clearly is: Where are such demands intended to lead?

Are we expected to establish a committee for the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice? Will self-appointed morality enforcers patrol streets, shopping centres and tourist destinations, monitoring people’s clothing and deciding what is acceptable?

Who would set these standards? What length of shorts would be legally permitted? Would different rules apply to men and women? Would tourists be subjected to the same requirements? Who would be responsible for assessing and penalising alleged violations?

These questions may sound sarcastic, but they reveal the danger of vague legislation that opens the door to arbitrary enforcement, social guardianship and unjustified interference in people’s private lives.

A modern state does not manage the wardrobes of its citizens. It does not measure morality by the length of fabric or turn police officers and public employees into fashion inspectors. Its responsibility is to protect rights and freedoms and to apply the law to conduct that causes real harm to society or violates the rights of others.

The Jordanian Constitution affirms that personal freedom is protected and that any infringement upon public rights, freedoms or the sanctity of private life is punishable by law. The Penal Code already contains provisions addressing indecent acts and gestures committed in public places.

Jordan’s legal system therefore already possesses the necessary tools to deal with conduct that genuinely violates public decency or harms others. There is no need to create new offences based on the type, length or appearance of a person’s clothing.

A clear distinction must be maintained between clothing that some people dislike and an indecent act prohibited by law. Disapproval does not turn clothing into a crime, and social conservatism does not grant any individual or institution the right to impose guardianship over the personal choices of others.

Freedom is not absolute. It is limited by the law, public order and the rights of others. However, restrictions on freedom cannot be based on personal impressions or changing social preferences. They must be clearly defined, necessary and proportionate to a genuine threat.

Expressions such as “public taste” or “inappropriate appearance”, when left without precise legal definitions, create confusion and inconsistency. What one person considers inappropriate may appear normal to another. What is acceptable in one place may be viewed differently elsewhere. Personal taste must not become the basis for criminal liability.

Jordanian men and women have always been known for moderation, dignity and respect for the values of their society. Jordan has never needed morality police to pursue people because of their clothing. Our traditions and cultural identity are deeply rooted and do not require enforcement through punishment and prosecution.

Imposing values by force may produce the opposite result. Genuine morality is developed through education, awareness, good example and personal conviction—not through fear of punishment.

Those who truly wish to protect society’s values should focus on improving education, strengthening culture, supporting families and confronting violence, drug abuse, corruption and unemployment. Public morality should not be reduced to a piece of fabric.

Such proposals would also be difficult to enforce in practice and would not provide genuine solutions to any social problem. Too often, these issues become political and media distractions that consume public attention while covering up larger and more urgent national concerns.

A Jordanian struggling with unemployment, rising living costs and weak public services will not see their life improve because shorts have been prohibited. A young person searching for employment will not find a job through new clothing regulations. Schools, hospitals and the national economy will not improve through campaigns monitoring citizens’ appearance.

The greater danger lies in where such demands could lead. What begins today with shorts may tomorrow extend to the colour and style of clothing, hairstyles, music, art, books and cultural activities, eventually imposing a single social model and excluding anyone who does not conform.

At that point, the debate would no longer be about clothing. It would become an attempt to reshape society through coercion and to classify citizens as more or less religious, moral or socially acceptable, according to standards established by those who have granted themselves the authority to judge others.

This approach would not protect society. It would divide it, weaken its national fabric and create unnecessary conflict.

Jordan is founded on moderation, pluralism and coexistence. Turning social differences into a confrontation between conservatives and non-conservatives would create tensions the country does not need while it faces serious economic, political and regional challenges.

Restrictions of this kind could also affect tourism, investment and Jordan’s international image. Tourists visiting Petra, Wadi Rum, Aqaba and the Dead Sea should not feel that they may be questioned because of their clothing. Investors seek stable and open countries governed by clear laws, not environments where rules change according to social pressure or temporary political campaigns.

Transforming Jordan into a closed society would not necessarily produce greater virtue. It could instead damage tourism and investment, increase unemployment and encourage qualified professionals and young people to leave in search of environments that respect their freedom and creativity.

Defending individual freedom does not mean promoting social disorder or disrespecting society’s values. It means respecting human dignity and the right to choose, provided that no one violates the rights of others or commits an act prohibited by law.

Jordan is a state of law and institutions, not a state of social inspection committees. It is a country of moderation, diversity and openness, and it should not become a closed model that monitors the personal details of people’s lives.

Jordan is not Kandahar, and clothing is not a national crisis.

Our real crises are unemployment, poverty, weak productivity and the decline of education and culture. They also lie in the inability of some officials to offer meaningful solutions, leading them to escape into marginal battles that neither feed the hungry, employ the unemployed, build schools nor strengthen the national economy.

05/07/2026

Resignation is no substitute for accountability

Resignation is no substitute for accountability
By: Dr. Haytham Ereifej

Jordan Daily - For years, Jordanians have spoken openly about corruption and the corrupt, holding them responsible for a significant part of the economic hardship the country faces today. They have linked corruption to alarming unemployment figures, administrative failure, weak planning, and the absence of a clear national vision capable of leading Jordan out of its crises.

For many citizens, corruption is no longer seen merely as a financial violation or an administrative mistake. It is viewed as a direct cause of lost opportunities, delayed projects, weakened public trust in institutions, and the widening gap between the citizen and the government.

When corruption involving a public official is discovered, the matter must not end with a quiet resignation, an administrative dismissal, or removal from public view, as though the problem disappears once the official leaves office. A corrupt official does not only steal money; he steals public trust, people’s hopes, the meaning of justice, and the dignity of the state. He also violates the oath and responsibility entrusted to him.

The most dangerous approach to corruption is to turn accountability into a formal procedure. An official leaves his position, the file is closed, and the real questions remain unanswered: Where did the money go? Who benefited? Who facilitated the wrongdoing? Who remained silent? Who provided protection? And who lost a rightful opportunity because of corruption?

Corruption rarely operates alone. Behind every corrupt act, there is often a network of interests, circles of protection, weak oversight, and suspicious silence. Therefore, confronting corruption cannot be achieved merely by changing individuals. It requires dismantling the system that allowed corruption to occur, continue, and escape punishment.

Jordanians are tired of seeing certain corrupt figures leave through the door of responsibility only to return through another window. They are tired of seeing major cases become temporary media stories without trials, without recovery of public funds, and without full disclosure to the public. This is dangerous because it creates a painful belief that the law is strict with the weak but hesitant when it faces the powerful.

A strong state does not fear opening corruption files. It fears closing them without accountability. The state does not become weaker when it holds a corrupt official accountable; rather, it becomes stronger, more respected, and more trusted by its people. What weakens the state is concealment, silent settlements, and soft resignations that replace justice.

We cannot seriously speak about economic, administrative, or political reform while corruption remains capable of escaping punishment. Nor can we ask citizens to be patient and make sacrifices while they watch those who looted, wasted, or failed walk away without consequence.

What is required today is clear: no immunity for the corrupt, no resignation in place of accountability, no administrative dismissal instead of justice, and no closure of any file before the truth is known and rights are restored. Fighting corruption is not a slogan. It is a real test of the state’s seriousness about reform.

Corruption is not a passing administrative error. It is a betrayal of public trust. Whoever betrays that trust should not simply leave office; he must be questioned, investigated, and held accountable. Everyone must understand that public office is a responsibility, not a prize; that public money is not available for personal use; and that the dignity of the state begins with its ability to hold accountable those who have harmed it.

This is the equation Jordanians are waiting for: accountability before forgetfulness, justice before settlements, and recovery of public funds before changing faces. Anything less will remain merely another chapter in the game of corruption.

Ereifej & Partners International Law Firm

10/10/2026

01/10/2026

22/09/2026

11/09/2026

06/08/2026

25/07/2026

05/07/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request