Iraq’s SLC backs Federal Court: Voting on controversial laws incorrect

Shafaq News/ On Monday, Nouri al-Maliki, head of Iraq’s State of Law Coalition (SLC), confirmed that the voting on three controversial laws in the Iraqi Parliament was “incorrect,” explaining that the vote was conducted as a single package.

In a televised speech, al-Maliki said, "A state not governed by law is overtaken by chaos and lawbreakers. To build a stable society, justice and fairness must be ensured for all its components," emphasizing that “the judiciary, as the ultimate safeguard for maintaining order, derives its strength from independence, neutrality, and freedom from pressure.”

Al-Maliki also addressed the voting on three controversial laws: the General Amnesty Law, the Personal Status Law, and the Property Restitution Law, stating, "Recently, there has been an unwarranted uproar over laws that were not fully legislated. One issue is that they were voted on as a single package, allowing a problematic law to pass under the cover of a widely supported one. Additionally, the required 'half plus one' majority was not met."

"This was not the usual practice in Parliament, as each law should have been legislated individually," he added. "The unfortunate events following the vote reminded Iraqis of the challenges that had previously plunged the country into further deterioration and bloodshed."

Notably, Iraq’s parliament passed several contentious laws on January 21 in one basket. However, the Federal Supreme Court, Iraq’s highest judicial authority, suspended the implementation of certain provisions due to legal concerns deemed inconsistent with the Constitution. The ruling sparked strong opposition from Sunni factions and some Kurdish parties, which labeled the intervention as “judicial overreach.” The Shiite Coordination Framework defended the court’s role, emphasizing its “constitutional mandate to oversee legislative processes.”

The Supreme Judicial Council, in response, ruled that laws passed by parliament cannot be suspended before their official publication in the government gazette, arguing that the court's ruling lacked legal grounds, as it targeted non-enforceable laws.