Administrative evidence constitutes a critical yet under-theorized domain where the rule of law meets the realities of state power. Despite growing comparative scholarship on administrative procedure, the evidentiary dimension of administrative adjudication in Arab legal systems remains insufficiently theorized, particularly in contexts lacking codified procedural frameworks. This study examines how administrative courts in Egypt and Jordan address evidentiary challenges in the absence of comprehensive procedural codification, a structural gap that elevates judicial discretion into a central mechanism of procedural governance. Employing a systematic doctrinal-comparative methodology, the research analyzes constitutional provisions, legislation, judicial decisions, and scholarly commentary, with reference to the French administrative model. It focuses on four key evidentiary dimensions: burden of proof, access to administrative files, judicial discretion, and digital evidence. The findings reveal a fundamental tension: while administrative evidence remains conceptually grounded in general evidentiary theory, its application is reshaped by structural inequality between citizen and state. Courts respond through burden-shifting, disclosure presumptions, and active judicial intervention. These developments support the reconceptualization of administrative evidence as “corrective evidentiary justice,” were evidentiary rules function as instruments of substantive fairness within broader frameworks of procedural justice and judicial governance. The study contributes by situating evidentiary practice within broader debates on procedural justice and judicial intervention; demonstrating the dual role of judicial discretion, and offering comparative insights for reform.
Treef et al. (Wed,) studied this question.