Iraqi Supreme Judicial Council Challenges Federal Supreme Court Over Law Suspension

Peregraf

The Iraqi Supreme Judicial Council has declared its opposition to the Federal Supreme Court’s decision to suspend the implementation of three recently passed laws, emphasizing that "the courts should enforce the amnesty law."

During its fourth session, chaired by the President of the Federal Court of Cassation, Judge Faiq Zidane, the Supreme Judicial Council discussed the implications of the Federal Supreme Court’s order halting the implementation of laws approved by the Iraqi Council of Representatives.

Judicial Council’s Stance

The Supreme Judicial Council stated that the enforcement and constitutional review of laws are governed by Articles (93/First) and (129) of the 2005 Iraqi Constitution. The Council argued that laws passed by Parliament must first be published in the Official Gazette before they can be legally challenged for unconstitutionality. This principle, it said, has been upheld in numerous Federal Supreme Court decisions.

"The implementation of a law legislated by the Iraqi Council of Representatives may not be suspended before its publication in the Official Gazette," the Council asserted.

The Federal Supreme Court’s jurisdictional order halted the implementation of the Personal Status Law Amendment Law No. (188) of 1959, the Law on the Return of Properties to Their Owners affected by dissolved Revolutionary Command Council decisions, and the Second Amendment Law to the General Amnesty Law No. (27) of 2016. However, the Judicial Council argued that since these laws have not yet been published in the Official Gazette, the Federal Supreme Court’s order lacks legal merit.

Furthermore, the Judicial Council criticized the Federal Supreme Court’s characterization of its jurisdictional order as "final and binding on all authorities," contending that such orders are temporary and do not carry the force of final judgments that resolve disputes.

Sunni Protests and Political Reactions

The Federal Supreme Court’s ruling, announced on Tuesday, has sparked outrage among Sunni political leaders. Official government work has been suspended in the Sunni-majority provinces of Nineveh, Salahuddin, and Anbar, with government offices closing in protest against the suspension of the General Amnesty Law.

Former Iraqi Parliament Speaker and Progress Party leader Mohammed al-Halbousi strongly condemned the decision. "We will confront and oppose this decision by all means, and we call for massive demonstrations that shake the foundations of injustice," he declared. "We do not accept that the Federal Court be politicized and that legislation be disregarded. The general amnesty law was passed to provide justice to the innocent and oppressed, and we reject any attempt to allow terrorism to resurface."

Political and Legal Divisions

The suspension of these laws has intensified political divisions in Iraq:
- Land Restitution Law: Aimed at returning lands confiscated under Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime to their original Kurdish and Turkmen owners in Kirkuk and other disputed areas. Kurdish and Turkmen lawmakers argue that it corrects historical injustices.
- General Amnesty Law Amendment: Seeks to redefine "affiliation" with terrorist organizations under the 2016 law. Sunni leaders insist this amendment is necessary to rectify wrongful imprisonments since 2003.
- Personal Status Law Amendment: Grants religious authorities oversight of marriage, divorce, and inheritance. While supported by Shiite lawmakers, it has faced widespread criticism from activists and women’s rights groups, who warn it could enable child marriage and undermine women’s rights.

The Federal Supreme Court has yet to provide a detailed explanation for its decision, though reports suggest that a Shiite lawmaker challenged the amendments, prompting the court’s intervention.

Former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who remains a powerful political figure as the leader of the State of Law Coalition, is believed to have played a key role in influencing the Federal Supreme Court’s decision to suspend the implementation of the three laws passed by the Iraqi Parliament. Maliki has long been a central figure in Iraq’s political and judicial landscape, leveraging his influence over state institutions, including the judiciary, to advance his political agenda.

Maliki has historically been aligned with the Federal Supreme Court, which has often issued rulings that align with his political interests. His party and its allies have repeatedly used legal mechanisms to challenge parliamentary decisions that do not favor their political standing. Sources suggest that Maliki and his allies pressured the Federal Supreme Court to intervene, particularly regarding the General Amnesty Law, which could have led to the release of individuals detained under counterterrorism charges, some of whom Maliki’s faction considers threats to Iraq’s stability.

One of the key laws suspended by the Federal Supreme Court was the Second Amendment to the General Amnesty Law No. 27 of 2016, which Sunni leaders strongly support as a means of redressing wrongful detentions. Maliki, however, has vehemently opposed such amnesty measures, arguing that they could result in the release of individuals with ties to insurgent or extremist groups. His State of Law Coalition has consistently rejected efforts to revise the law, viewing it as a potential security risk. Many believe that his opposition played a role in the court's decision to block the law’s implementation.

Maliki’s involvement is also suspected in the suspension of the Land Restitution Law, which aims to return properties confiscated under Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime. This law disproportionately affects Arab settlers in disputed territories such as Kirkuk, where Maliki has sought to maintain political alliances with influential Arab tribal leaders. By pushing for its suspension, he may be seeking to undermine Kurdish and Turkmen efforts to reclaim lands, thus consolidating Shiite-Arab influence in these contested regions.

Similarly, the Personal Status Law Amendment, which strengthens religious authorities' control over marriage and inheritance, aligns with the interests of Shiite clerics and conservative factions that Maliki has long supported. Its suspension, therefore, may reflect internal Shiite political struggles, with Maliki possibly maneuvering to maintain his relevance within the dominant Shiite power structure.

The Federal Supreme Court’s ruling has deepened Iraq’s sectarian and political divides, with Sunni leaders accusing the judiciary of being politicized and serving Maliki’s interests. The mass protests in Sunni-majority provinces—Nineveh, Salahuddin, and Anbar—signal growing frustration with Maliki’s continued influence over Iraq’s legal system. His role in sidelining political opponents through legal challenges has been a consistent pattern since his tenure as prime minister (2006–2014), and this latest episode underscores his enduring grip on judicial and state institutions.

With the legal and political battles still unfolding, Nouri al-Maliki’s maneuvering through the judiciary remains a central factor in Iraq’s ongoing legal and constitutional struggles. His influence over the Federal Supreme Court and other state institutions continues to shape Iraq’s political landscape, often in ways that escalate tensions between the country’s competing factions.

With the Federal Supreme Court now reviewing the case, the fate of these laws remains uncertain. Political tensions continue to mount as various factions push their opposing positions, deepening Iraq’s ongoing legal and constitutional struggles.