314 / 522
communiqué it issued, despite there being no lawful basis for doing so.
To that end, in parallel to this notion, the Court of Appeal pointed out
that under Article 4 of the Law, which was used as grounds for the
communiqué, the Authority is not granted with unlimited powers to set
up rates, and, therefore, the Authority may not collect lost-electricity
costs on the basis of the subject matter communiqué.
This practise is not compatible with the notions of the rule of law
and jurisprudence
The Court of Appeal does not correlate the collection of the costs
of losses that occurred whilst transferring electricity, nor the costs of
electricity theft by others, from subscribers who are law abiding.
This opinion of the Court of Appeal is pertinent because, in line
with the principle of “individual criminal responsibility,” which is one
of the general principles of criminal law, and is stipulated under Article
38 of the Constitution, it is required that punishment for this crime
shall only be imposed on the perpetrator of the crime, and that only the
perpetrator of the crime is affected by the penalty imposed. In other
words, invoicing the non-defaulting, rule abiding subscriber for the
costs that do not arise from the neglect of the subscriber is not in com-
pliance with the principle of individual criminal responsibility and,
additionally, such an act betrays trust under the law.
This practise prevents the authority from keeping in pace with
technology
The Court of Appeal further states that the collection of costs for
lost/illegal electricity from the law-abiding subscribers prevents the
Authority not only from applying necessary technological innovations
to combat loss of electricity, but also from expending the efforts nec-
essary to identify the perpetrators and, yet, the Authority has the duty
to prevent loss of electricity and theft, and to collect the costs from the
perpetrator.
Non-disclosure of the cost of lost/illegal electricity in the itemiza-
tion of the bill is incompatible with the principle of transparent state.
In addition to the above, the Court of Appeal noted that due to the
fact that consumers are unaware as to the amount they are paying as a
298
NEWSLETTER 2015