In an official response to what was raised in the media about the plan to address infrastructure damage, the Ministry of Public Works and Transport denied what it described as “inaccurate information,” stressing that the measures taken fall within an emergency plan subject to legal procedures.
The Ministry explained, in a statement issued by its media office, that what was published in a newspaper regarding the Council of Ministers’ decision on the plan to repair roads and bridges “contained inaccurate information and conclusions,” stressing that it rushed, immediately after the damage occurred, to open the damaged roads, remove obstacles, and ensure continuity of connectivity between the regions, “out of a national motive in exceptional circumstances.”
She expressed her surprise at “the questioning of emergency measures aimed at protecting public safety and securing the passage of citizens,” considering that any delay in intervention would have been considered a dereliction of public duty.
In its clarifications, the ministry stressed that the Council of Ministers’ decision “is not an open mandate,” but rather an approval of an emergency plan with specific implementation mechanisms, aiming to reconnect the regions after the interruption of vital roads and axes and the disruption of basic facilities.
It also denied that the plan was a gateway to bypassing the public procurement law or approving contracts by mutual consent, noting that it distinguishes between urgent emergency works, temporary works, and reconstruction projects, each of which is subject to appropriate legal mechanisms.
The Ministry rejected what was raised about “division” or “discretionary,” considering that the distribution of works is carried out according to technical standards related to the sites of damage and the nature of the required intervention, and not for any other considerations.
Regarding financing, she explained that what was circulated regarding treasury advances is inaccurate, noting that the funds allocated for emergency works do not exceed $300,000, and they are allocated for the work of removing rubble and facilitating passage.
She confirmed that all obligations for reconstructing bridges and roads will be made through public tenders under the supervision of the Public Procurement Authority, while contracting by mutual consent will be limited to a narrow scope that includes preparing construction studies or works of an immediate relief nature, and within specific financial limits.
The Ministry stressed that it presented its plan to the Council of Ministers “in full transparency,” and received its approval, stressing that implementation will take place under the legal and supervisory principles, and in a way that preserves public money.
The statement concluded by calling for “accuracy and objectivity” in dealing with this issue, warning against publishing inaccurate information that may offend public opinion, and stressing that the first goal remains “facilitating citizens’ affairs in light of difficult circumstances.”
This clarification comes in light of the ongoing debate about managing the post-war damage phase, where the importance of balancing between speed of response and the requirements of transparency and oversight is highlighted, in a sensitive phase that requires rehabilitating infrastructure and ensuring the continuity of vital facilities.
