“Unjust!” Mosul families rage at General Amnesty Law block

Shafaq News/ On Wednesday, families of detainees protested in Mosul’s al-Faysaliyah area against the Federal Supreme Court’s decision to suspend the implementation of the General Amnesty Law.
The demonstrators condemned the ruling as “unjust” and a blow to their long-awaited hopes for their relatives’ release. “This decision is unfair to innocent people,” one protester told Shafaq News. “We were eagerly awaiting the law’s implementation, only to be shocked by its sudden suspension.” Another lamented that the ruling deepened their suffering and shattered their trust in the justice system.
Among those attending the protest was MP Jamil Abdul-Sabak, who denounced the court’s decision, calling it a major “setback” to justice and reconciliation efforts. “This suspension represents a retreat from reform,” Sabak stated, urging authorities to reconsider their stance to ensure fair legal treatment for those eligible under the law.
Escalating Political Backlash
The Federal Supreme Court’s ruling not only halted the General Amnesty Law but also suspended laws related to Personal Status amendments and Property Restitution in Kirkuk. The move triggered a political firestorm, drawing sharp criticism from several key Sunni leaders, including Mohammed al-Halbousi, Former Speaker of Parliament; Khamis al-Khanjar, Leader of the Sovereignty Alliance; Jamal al-Dhari, and Secretary-General of the Iraqi National Project.
These leaders accused the court of political interference, arguing that the ruling was driven by partisan interests rather than legal considerations. In response, local governments in Nineveh, Al-Anbar, and Saladin declared Wednesday a public holiday, suspending government offices in protest against the decision.
Conversely, the Coordination Framework—a coalition of Shiite political factions—defended the ruling, describing the suspended laws as “controversial” and claiming they were passed improperly in Parliament. They cited procedural flaws and insisted that the judiciary was safeguarding constitutional integrity rather than engaging in political obstruction.