Samar Al-Miqrin

Al-Jazirah

I went to the market in Riyadh to buy a pre-paid SIM card for a domestic worker and showed my ID to the clerk. “It’s not needed,” he said. I asked: “Didn’t the Communications and Information Technology Commission issue a regulation regarding this several years ago that made it compulsory for everybody to show their IDs when buying a SIM card? You cannot even recharge the prepaid card without the number of your national ID or  iqama (residence permit).”  He replied: “The iqama number that you can recharge your card with is printed on the back!”



I was honestly surprised that this was happening and thought that perhaps this was only the case in that particular shop. I then visited several other shops and found that they sell cards in a similar fashion! Does it make sense for the Communications Commission to issue such regulations and then not to follow up with their implementation?



I think this issue is very critical considering the security and social dangers involved. The most important question is who is the person whose iqama number is printed on the card? Does he know about it? Would he be held accountable if his iqama number were to be exploited by elements who want to undermine the Kingdom’s security? Many questions ran through my mind as I learned that the regulation is not being implemented.



From what I have witnessed, I cannot help but think that mobile companies know how their SIM cards are being sold. The commission cannot be unaware that cards are sold attached with the iqama numbers of unknown people. I imagine that those whose ID numbers are being used could, if they knew, file court cases and receive compensation. Stopping the trade in these cards requires a law that protects citizens and foreign residents and the workers whose iqama numbers are being exploited.



In the middle of 2012, the commission issued a decision imposing a SR5 million fine on mobile phone companies. I recall that three companies asked for a grace period to correct the situation. Did the correction take place? Was the grace period only a way to circumvent the decision?



I have another question: Where are the inspections the commission pledged to carry out and where are the inspections of the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs? Are inspections carried out at all? I think solving this problem would not be difficult as long as there is a will to do so. The circumventing of regulations is a matter that requires the intervention of the Anti-Corruption Commission.