The story: In Iraq, parliamentary blocs remain at odds over a bill on Federal Supreme Court appointments. The consecutive attempts since March 4 to push the bill through parliament are being challenged given the potential inclusion of Islamic jurists as judges. Indeed, critics say such appointments would undermine Iraq’s constitution. Of note, the parliamentary elections slated for October are contingent upon the bill’s ratification. As such, a continued political deadlock could further delay the vote.

The coverage: In an interview with the state-run Iraq News Agency on March 9, head of the parliament's legal committee, MP Mohammad Al-Ghazzi, stated that "a primary resolution is to appoint four Islamic jurists named by the Sunni and Shiite endowments." He added that "the inclusion of jurists on the Federal Supreme Court is mentioned in the constitution.”

On March 9, Izzat Al-Shabandar, an outspoken veteran Iraqi politician, said, “The presence of… [Islamic] expert jurists with veto rights on the Federal Supreme Court promotes religious and sectarian divisions.” Shabandar further commented, “This inclusion confuses the political system and contradicts the constitution, which adopts a democratic federal system and stipulates Islam as the religion of the state rather than its [ruling] system.”

Speaking to the London-based New Arab, Asa’ad Al-Morshedi, an MP from the Iraqiyon bloc led by senior politician and Shiite cleric Ammar Al-Hakim, warned of the potential sectarian and ethnic-based imbalances that the bill could allow for. He said, “There are political players that would like to have power sharing over the Federal Supreme Court like other state institutions.”

Meanwhile, MP Baida Khedr of the Christian Babylon Movement told Al-Sumaria, an independent TV channel, that Iraqi minorities have been marginalized in the draft law.

Khedr explained, “The third article of the bill includes a provision for a judge to represent minorities. However, [such a position] does not have veto power.”

Chairman of the Iraq Advisory Council Farhad Alaaldin concluded in an op-ed that debate on the bill’s amendment at this particular time is not aimed at resolving the Federal Supreme Court’s problems—rather, he maintained, the objective is to postpone the October elections.

The context/analysis: Since late 2019, the Federal Supreme Court has been rendered unable to deliver upon its duties—namely, interpreting the Iraqi constitution and certifying the result of parliamentary elections. The reason for this is that it is unable to fulfil the quorum necessary to hold court sessions.

The appointment of a new judge has been disrupted because the court had decided back in May 2019 that article three of the law regulating the Federal Supreme Court itself was unconstitutional. Since late 2019, the parliament has not attempted to seriously tackle this question. Articles number two and three of the law determine whether or not to include Islamic jurists and which state institution has the jurisdiction to appoint Federal Supreme Court judges.

However, since the body is crucial in the certification of parliamentary elections, it became an imperative for lawmakers to finally amend the law in order to allow the early vote slated for Oct. 2021 to be held.

The Iraqi parliament started to make visible efforts to bring the required amendment up for debate in late 2020.

The Federal Supreme Court’s pivotal role in Iraqi politics has encouraged parliamentary blocs to demand the inclusion of Islamic jurists as part of the bill amendment. These calls have been led in particular by the Fatah and State of Law blocs—both of which are close to the Iran-led ‘Axis of Resistance’.

On March 4, the parliament, satisfying a two-thirds quorum, managed to vote on 18 out of the 24 articles in the bill amendment. However, a deadlock over the remaining six articles remains. As noted above, the most controversial of these are articles two and three, which decide whether to include Islamic jurists on the bench, and which institution has the jurisdiction to appoint judges.

In his op-ed, Alaaldin also cited article number 12 as among the six articles intensely debated. That article addresses the mechanism for resolving disputes between Baghdad and Erbil.

Kurdish MPs argue that verdicts in such disputes should be resolved by “consensus” at the Federal Supreme Court, rather than a “majority.”

The future: Whatever resolution emerges from the impasse over the Federal Supreme Court bill is sure to impact the ongoing talks between Baghdad and Kurdish authorities over the latter’s share of the 2021 federal budget bill.

The parliamentary blocs bargaining over the bill and the lagging 2021 federal budget want to keep the two issues intertwined. Thus, the passing of either of the two bills will likely help break the deadlock holding back the other.