Crisis as Iraq top court halts amnesty and personal status laws

Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court has issued an order to suspend the implementation of three controversial laws recently passed by parliament – a move that experts warn could plunge the country into a deep political and legal crisis.

In a chaotic session on 21 January 2025, the Iraqi Parliament approved three controversial laws in one package, including amendments to the Personal Status Law, a General Amnesty Law, and a property restitution law. 

The Personal Status Law changes would empower clerics to decide marriage cases based on their interpretation of Islamic law, potentially legalising child marriage for girls as young as nine and boys as young as 14. While Shia lawmakers largely supported the amendment, many fear it endangers the protection of minors.

The General Amnesty Law could pardon individuals for offences such as embezzlement and drug-related crimes—even for possession of under 50 grams of narcotics—potentially benefiting high-profile figures linked to corruption scandals. Sunni leaders defended the law as a remedy to address judicial injustices and to free thousands of allegedly unfairly detained Sunni inmates. Kurdish parties backed the property restitution law, which seeks to return properties seized under Saddam Hussein’s regime to their rightful owners.

In its ruling issued on Tuesday evening, the court described the suspension as a “temporary preventive measure” designed to forestall any irreversible consequences should the laws later be found to be unconstitutional. 

The order comes after ten Members of Parliament filed legal challenges, alleging that irregularities in the voting process undermined the legitimacy of the legislation.

The decision has ignited sharp political divisions. Sunni political forces – which had been instrumental in advancing the general amnesty law as part of a broader political agreement – have strongly criticised the ruling.

Sunni leader, Mohammed al-Halbousi, head of the Taqadum Party and former speaker of parliament, told his supporters via social media, “We have repeatedly stated that the amnesty law is meant solely to redress the grievances of the wronged and innocent. We cannot accept that terrorists, who have long threatened our security, be released. The politicisation of the Federal Court’s decision is unacceptable.”

Al-Halbousi vowed that his party would “confront and counter this decision by all legal and popular means,” calling for mass protests to challenge what he described as an attack on the rights of the innocent.

In contrast, the Sovereignty Alliance – led by Sunni leader Khamees al-Khanjar – has urged the court to expedite its review of the legislation.

In a statement, the alliance maintained that the amnesty law was a “fundamental step towards redressing past injustices and restoring rightful ownership,” adding that it would help rebuild trust between citizens and state institutions.

 “While we fully respect the role of the judiciary, we are astonished by the suspension of the second amendment to the amnesty law,” the alliance said, arguing that the measure is in line with prior political accords.

The fallout from the court’s decision has already been felt on the streets. Governors in Anbar, Nineveh, and Salahuddin, three Sunni-dominant provinces, have suspended official work for Wednesday in protest, and thousands have taken to the streets in Mosul to demonstrate against the suspension of the laws.

Legal analysts warn that the dispute could have far-reaching consequences. A member of the parliamentary legal committee told our Arabic edition Al-Araby Al-Jadeed that the ruling “opens the door to new political crises,” suggesting that the suspension order may be a politically motivated attempt to undermine laws that were hastily pushed through under intense pressure from various political factions.

Some observers have pointed to recent comments by former Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki – who opposed including convicted terrorists in the amnesty law – as indicative of the deep divisions within the country’s political elite.

Meanwhile, some Sunni politicians claimed that al-Maliki and al-Halbousi, reportedly backed by Iranian interests, have deliberately stoked unrest to foster a chaotic environment that furthers their agendas.

Adding a further twist to the legal battle, Iraq’s Higher Judicial Council convened its fourth session on Wednesday morning under the chairmanship of Judge Faiq Zaidan. 

During the session, the council examined the provincial order issued by the Federal Court on 4 February 2025. The council argued that any challenge to the constitutionality of a law must await its publication in the official gazette – a step that had not yet been completed for the three contested laws. 

The Federal Supreme Court on Wednesday clarified that, under Article 94 of the 2005 Constitution of the Republic of Iraq, its decisions are final and binding on all authorities. This provision applies to all its judgments and rulings, including interim orders, protecting them from appeal and mandating their implementation. As the Constitution is the document of the people, the rulings of constitutional courts derive their authority from it, obliging everyone to adhere to its provisions without violation.

As such, the council deemed the suspension order “without subject matter” and effectively unsustainable, since a law cannot be lawfully suspended before its official promulgation.