Unmasking the Elite: Iraq’s court rejects Diplomatic Passport Law

Shafaq News – Baghdad

Iraq’s legislative record since 2003 has been marked by a series of controversial laws that fuel political disputes, provoke constitutional challenges, and deepen public mistrust of governing institutions.

The latest example is the diplomatic passport amendment, a law that stirred fierce debate over privilege, equality, and the rule of law.

On August 20, Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court struck down the law expanding access to diplomatic passports, declaring it unconstitutional in a decision widely viewed as a reaffirmation of judicial oversight over parliamentary privilege.

The Foreign Ministry welcomed the ruling, crediting the efforts of Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein and his legal team. It described the judgment as essential to protecting a “sovereign document that represents the identity and reputation of the state.”

The annulled law, No. 6 of 2025, amended the 2015 Passport Law to grant diplomatic passports not only to senior officials but also to their spouses, dependents, and, in some cases, retired figures.

Published earlier this year in the official gazette al-Waqa’i al-Iraqiya, the amendment effectively transformed the diplomatic passport into a permanent family entitlement.

Parliament approved the amendment during the first session of its fifth electoral cycle, despite sharp criticism from citizens and legal experts who argued that Iraq faced far more pressing challenges.

Critics described it as another example of the state prioritizing elite entitlements while economic instability, corruption, and human rights crises remain unresolved.

Figures from the Interior Ministry show that between 4,000 and 4,200 diplomatic passports were issued in just one year, beginning in October 2021. In total, more than 35,000 diplomatic passports have been issued—an exceptionally high figure compared to larger states such as India or Japan, which issue fewer than 20,000.

Legal and Constitutional Concerns

Legal expert Ali al-Tamimi told Shafaq News that the Supreme Court’s ruling rested on Articles 14, 15, 47, and 80 of the Constitution, which enshrine equality, separation of powers, and the proper scope of executive authority. He recalled that the Court had initially issued an injunction suspending implementation of the law, a step that signaled its unconstitutionality even before the final judgment.

Al-Tamimi emphasized that under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1969 Vienna Convention on Special Missions, diplomatic passports are strictly tied to active diplomatic service. Once an assignment ends, the privilege must expire.

Extending passports to family members and retirees, he said, was a “serious error” that contravened international law and turned the passport into an inherited privilege rather than a state instrument.

He added that Iraq is constitutionally bound under Article 8 to respect international treaties. Granting diplomatic passports to spouses and children, or retaining them after retirement, directly undermines these obligations. “Immunity is linked to service, and it cannot be transferred as if it were part of a salary or inheritance.”

According to al-Tamimi, had the amendment limited diplomatic passports to officials for the duration of their service — without extending them to family members — it might have aligned with both the Constitution and international norms. Instead, by expanding eligibility, “Iraq diverged from global practice, where such documents are issued sparingly and often reserved for those who have made exceptional contributions to public life.”

Written and edited by Shafaq News staff.