Debate is intensifying over a decision issued by Damascus governorate regulating the sale of alcohol, amid a divide between the official narrative describing it as a “regulatory measure” and legal and rights-based interpretations that view it as an overreach of authority and interference in personal freedoms.
As the controversy escalates, the decision has become a public issue where legal and constitutional dimensions intersect with social considerations.
What does the decision include?
On March 15, the governorate issued a decision banning the serving of alcohol in restaurants and nightclubs, converting bar licenses into cafes, and restricting the sale of sealed alcohol to three specific neighborhoods: Bab Touma, al-Qassaa, and Bab Sharqi, under new conditions.
The governorate also granted a three-month deadline for shops already selling sealed alcohol within Damascus to regularize their status in accordance with the new provisions.
The decision sparked widespread criticism, most notably from Minister of Social Affairs and Labor Hind Kabawat, who said it “affects the social and cultural diversity that characterizes Syria.”
Within days, criticism intensified, prompting Damascus governorate to issue an expanded clarification on March 21, stating that the decision is not new but based on previous legislation, primarily Legislative Decree No. 180 of 1952.
It denied targeting the neighborhoods of Bab Touma, al-Qassaa, and Bab Sharqi, describing them as “icons of the capital’s identity and culture.”
However, the clarification did not ease the controversy. Instead, it opened broader debate over the legality of the decision, the limits of administrative authority, and its implications for freedoms and social diversity.
“Exceeding jurisdiction”
Defining the scope of a governor’s authority is central to assessing the decision, raising the question of whether it falls within administrative action or constitutes the imposition of general rules of a legislative nature.
Legal expert and specialist in human rights and international criminal law, Al-Moutassim al-Kilani, said the decision by Damascus governorate to designate specific areas for alcohol sales and cancel certain activities is an administrative decision subject to the principle of legality, meaning it must comply with existing laws and the limits of administrative authority.
Referring to Local Administration Law No. 107 of 2011, al-Kilani explained that the governor exercises executive powers limited to implementing laws and managing public facilities, without authority to set general rules or impose restrictions affecting rights and freedoms.
Accordingly, issuing a decision that broadly regulates economic activity or restricts freedom of work exceeds jurisdiction and constitutes an abuse of power, he told Enab Baladi.
Similarly, Bassam al-Ahmad, director of Syrians for Truth and Justice, described the decision as “fundamentally illegal,” noting that it is not based on any valid legal provision allowing such restrictions.
He added that “no authority, whether a governorate or even a ministry, has the right to issue decisions affecting fundamental freedoms without explicit legal basis.”
Al-Ahmad also pointed to a direct contradiction with the constitutional declaration, particularly Article 12, which guarantees human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Reliance on 1952 decree, differing legal interpretations
The governorate based its justification on Legislative Decree No. 180 of 1952, considering it the legal foundation for regulating alcohol sales.
However, al-Kilani offered a different interpretation, explaining that the decree sets licensing conditions and some location-related restrictions, but does not grant authority to impose a comprehensive ban or geographically redistribute the activity.
He argued that the current decision “goes beyond regulation to reshaping the legal rule itself,” effectively constituting an implicit amendment to legislation, which falls exclusively under legislative authority, making the decision legally flawed.
Al-Ahmad linked the issue to a broader problem of selective application of laws, saying authorities sometimes invoke old laws when they serve their agenda and ignore them otherwise. He stressed that the constitutional declaration should be the primary legal reference during the transitional phase.
“Restriction on personal freedoms”
The decision quickly took on a human rights dimension, with accusations that it restricts individual personal freedoms in contradiction with the constitutional declaration.
Al-Kilani said the decision affects several fundamental rights, including freedom of work, economic activity, personal freedom, and equality, noting that such rights “can only be restricted by law and within limits of necessity and proportionality.”
Imposing these restrictions through an administrative decision violates the principle of legal supremacy and falls outside the constitutional framework.
Al-Ahmad echoed this view, emphasizing that Article 12 clearly guarantees fundamental freedoms and that the decision represents a direct violation of this provision.
Impact on social fabric
One of the most controversial aspects of the decision is limiting alcohol sales to specific neighborhoods with particular religious and social characteristics, where most residents are Christian.
Al-Kilani said this raises a legal issue related to equality, as it could be interpreted as indirect discrimination by placing the burden of a specific activity on certain areas.
He warned that “linking an economic activity to the identity or demographic composition of an area opens the door to serious legal challenges.”
Al-Ahmad highlighted the societal dimension, arguing that the decision creates stigma around certain neighborhoods and reinforces stereotypes, calling it “a major mistake in a transitional phase that should strengthen social cohesion.”
Clarification has no legal effect
The governorate justified the decision as preserving public morals and limiting disorder, including the spread of unlicensed shops.
However, al-Kilani noted that administrative “clarifications” do not change the legal status of a decision unless they include explicit cancellation or substantive amendment.
He stressed that the legality of administrative decisions depends on their content and effects, not their labeling. Reintroducing the decision with different wording while maintaining its impact does not resolve its legal flaws.
While the administration may invoke public order or social considerations, al-Kilani said legitimate objectives alone are insufficient. The means must also be legal, proportionate, and issued by a competent authority. Good intentions do not legitimize unlawful decisions.
Al-Ahmad also pointed to the absence of an independent constitutional court as a key reason for such disputes, stressing the need for a judicial body capable of reviewing the constitutionality of laws and administrative decisions.
Protests as legal and social indicator
Hundreds of Syrian activists protested in Damascus on March 22 against Decision No. 311 regulating alcohol sales, demanding respect for personal freedoms as outlined in the constitutional declaration.
According to Enab Baladi’s correspondent, around 200 people from various Syrian communities gathered in Bab Touma in the Old City of Damascus to call for the decision’s repeal.
Protesters stressed the need to avoid interference in personal freedoms and urged officials to carefully study decisions before issuing them.
Writer Ammar Dayoub told Enab Baladi the protest rejects a decision that “violates both personal and public freedoms,” adding that it interferes in individuals’ private affairs and discriminates between communities and neighborhoods.
Dr. Haitham al-Atwani, a lecturer in logic, described the decision as “unjust,” linking it to a series of “arbitrary” measures driven by “ignorance” and lack of consultation.
Legal dimension of the encroachment on freedoms
Legal expert al-Moutassim al-Kilani said the protests reflect a general sense that rights have been infringed upon or that discrimination exists, giving them a legal dimension linked to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
They also indicate an imbalance between the administrative decision and the requirements of justice and equality, which warrants reconsidering it within legal frameworks.
For his part, al-Ahmad considers these movements “evidence of broad social rejection of restrictions on freedoms,” noting that portraying them as related only to alcohol is “an oversimplification,” because their core concerns is fundamental freedoms.
Legal path and required reforms
As debate continues, the legal path remains one of the available options.
Al-Kilani explained that appealing before the State Council is the most appropriate route to annul the decision, on the grounds of violating the law and abuse of power.
It is also possible to pursue the administrative track by requesting the withdrawal or amendment of the decision, alongside activating the role of rights groups in documenting its effects and demanding compliance with the principle of the rule of law.
In contrast, Bassam al-Ahmad stressed the need to repeal the decision and all similar measures that affect fundamental freedoms, as well as the need for genuine judicial reforms to end the state of “selectivity” in applying laws, so they are not enforced in line with the authority’s preferences, but within a clear and unified legal and constitutional framework.
if you think the article contain wrong information or you have additional details
