Iraq’s Amnesty Law: A legal battle threatens to unravel Sunni political gains

Iraq’s Amnesty Law: A legal battle threatens to unravel Sunni political gains
2025-02-05T08:10:01+00:00

Shafaq News/ Iraq’s highest court has halted the implementation of a controversial amnesty law just days after its approval, deepening political tensions and triggering backlash from Sunni leaders who see the move as a threat to their hard-fought gains.

Vote Then Suspend

The vote, which took place in January, saw the Iraqi Parliament approve the laws “in one basket,” sparking protests among lawmakers who argued that the process was flawed. Several MPs alleged that Speaker Mahmoud Al-Mashhadani did not read the full text of the Amnesty Law before announcing its passage and that the laws were pushed through without a proper vote, leading to an effort by several lawmakers to collect signatures for the removal of Speaker Al-Mashhadani.

Sunni blocs in parliament welcomed the approval of the Amnesty Law, which they had long advocated, citing the presence of “many innocent people” in prisons, as well as detainees whose charges they described as “malicious.” The law’s passage was widely seen as part of broader political negotiations among Iraq’s factions, with Sunni parties considering it a key condition for their participation in the government.

However, some Shiite factions opposed the law, citing concerns that it could lead to the release of detainees accused of terrorism-related offenses.

A week after the parliamentary session, Iraq’s Supreme Judicial Council Chairman, Faiq Zaidan, issued an order to implement the Second Amendment to the General Amnesty Law. The Iraqi Presidency later confirmed that “based on the approval of the Iraqi Parliament, as per Articles 61 and 73 of the Constitution, President Abdul Latif Rashid signed the Second Amendment into law.”

Despite these steps, a legal challenge was filed before the Federal Supreme Court, questioning the validity of the vote.

On Feb. 4, Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court suspended the implementation of the three laws, including the major amendment to the General Amnesty Law.

The court stated that “the suspension of the law’s implementation is a discretionary power and a temporary precautionary measure until a ruling is made on the constitutionality of the laws in question and their compliance with the constitution.” It further noted that “the consequences of enforcing these laws cannot be undone if a ruling is later issued deeming them unconstitutional, especially since the urgency principle is based on the concept of immediate temporary protection that neither deprives nor grants rights.”

The ruling, based on Article 94 of the 2005 Constitution and Article 5/Second of the amended Federal Supreme Court Law No. 30 of 2005, was issued by a majority of court members, making it final and binding on all parties.

Political Uproar

The court’s decision drew sharp criticism from Sunni leaders, who accused the judiciary of political interference. Authorities in the Sunni-majority provinces of Al-Anbar, Nineveh, and Saladin, as well as in Kirkuk, suspended official working hours on Wednesday in protest.

Sunni political factions, including Taqadum, Al-Siyada, and the Iraqi National Project, rejected the ruling, stating that the Amnesty Law does not apply to individuals convicted of terrorism.

Mohammed Al-Halbousi, leader of Taqadum, vowed to challenge the court’s decision through legal avenues and called for protests and institutional boycotts.

"The Federal Court is interfering in legislation, disregarding laws, and issuing an unjust ruling against the innocent and wrongfully accused," Al-Halbousi said.

In a statement, Al-Siyada called for a swift ruling on its constitutionality and accused lawmakers of exploiting the issue for “political gain” and “inciting unrest.”

The group reaffirmed its “respect for the Federal Supreme Court and the constitution” but strongly opposed the injunction. It argued that the Amnesty Law amendment was part of a political agreement among national factions and accused certain MPs of “deliberately obstructing its implementation.”

Jamal Al-Dari, Secretary-General of the Iraqi National Project, called for an emergency leadership meeting to address the ruling, warning on X that “ongoing political disputes, evasion of agreements, and attempts to involve the judiciary in obstructing parliamentary decisions will push Iraq into further crises.” He condemned the use of the General Amnesty Law as a “political bargaining tool” and demanded the immediate enforcement of the political agreement, which he claimed “remains hidden from the public.”

The Coordination Framework, a coalition of Shiite political parties, backed the court’s decision, arguing that it safeguarded constitutional integrity. The coalition insisted that the ruling was a necessary response to procedural violations during the January 21 parliamentary session.

"The Federal Supreme Court’s decision is not an attack on legislation but a defense of constitutional order. These laws were passed without proper debate, in a single vote, and under questionable quorum conditions," the Coordination Framework said in a statement.

The coalition rejected allegations that the court’s ruling was politically motivated, saying “attempts to delegitimize the judiciary and frame this ruling as a ‘political maneuver’ are reckless and dangerous. Respect for the rule of law means respecting the mechanisms designed to protect democracy.”

Meanwhile, a bloc of lawmakers from central and southern Iraq welcomed the ruling, condemning "emotional and irresponsible" reactions from Sunni politicians. "A precautionary ruling is a temporary measure aimed at preventing irreversible legal consequences. Political outcry and street mobilization are unwarranted," the bloc stated.

Temporary or Permanent?

Legal Committee member in the Iraqi Parliament, Mohammed Anouz, told Shafaq News that "the issuance of the provisional order by the Federal Supreme Court regarding the three laws is a normal procedure. This order does not mean the annulment of the vote or the repeal of the legislation by Parliament; it is a temporary measure until the case is reviewed and decided upon."

He added, "We are awaiting the court’s final and binding decision, which we expect to be issued within a maximum of two weeks, as such cases require legal and constitutional review."

Kurdish parties are yet to comment on the court’s decision

What Comes Next?

Taqadum MP Qutaiba Mohammed told Shafaq News that his bloc had suspended its attendance at parliamentary sessions in response to the judicial order.

"We are considering other measures, such as withdrawing from the government or Parliament if the legislation is fully revoked. However, this decision must be made through a political agreement among all Sunni blocs," he said.

He added, "The General Amnesty Law was the only major achievement for the Sunni component in the political agreement that formed the government. Yet, powerful figures within the judiciary are obstructing it. Withdrawing from Parliament is one of the tools we have."

Mohammed argued that "the Federal Court would not issue such a controversial ruling without real political influence from key leaders. Otherwise, how can we explain that after long efforts, disputes, and the suspension of parliamentary sessions, the General Amnesty Law was finally passed—only for sudden and unjust decisions to emerge, depriving innocent people of the chance to have their cases reviewed?"

Shafaq Live
Shafaq Live
Radio radio icon