“The Most Dangerous Ruling” .. A Judge Decides On The Legitimacy Of Al-Sadr’s Request To Dissolve Parliament And Provides A Deep Explanation

“The Most Dangerous Ruling” .. A Judge Decides On The Legitimacy Of Al-Sadr’s Request To Dissolve Parliament And Provides A Deep Explanation

28/08/2022

The Most Dangerous Ruling .. A Judge Decides On The Legitimacy Of Al-Sadrs Request To Dissolve Parliament And Provides A Deep ExplanationEarth News/ The former head of the Integrity Commission, Judge Rahim Al-Ugaili, presented today, Sunday, a detailed explanation of the constitutional ways to dissolve parliament, and the “confused” texts included in the Iraqi constitution.

In an article followed by Earth News, Al-Ugaili confirmed that the parliament can be dissolved in two ways, the first is through a simple majority, or it can be dissolved at the request of the Prime Minister and with the approval of the President of the Republic.

Regarding Al-Sadr’s request to dissolve Parliament, Al-Ugaili explained that the constitutional text did not mention the dissolution of the House of Representatives, other than the two methods mentioned above, but at the same time, it did not provide for preventing the dissolution by a third way, because it did not use the phrase (the House of Representatives is not dissolved except by an absolute majority). If he used that phrase at the beginning of the text, it would have been forbidden to dissolve the House of Representatives by other than the two methods that it stipulated, but he used another phrase by saying (the House of Representatives is dissolved by an absolute majority) and this formula does not provide for preventing the dissolution by another method.

He pointed out that this wording, which is not conclusive in preventing the solution, by a third way, provides an opportunity, with which many do not agree, to say that the solution is possible, by virtue of a ruling from the Federal Supreme Court, when the House of Representatives violates the constitution, disrupts its provisions and is unable for any reason to carry out its legislative and oversight duties.

Here is the text of the interpretation:

Dissolution of the House of Representatives by virtue of..

The dissolution of the elected Legislative Council is one of the most important and dangerous provisions that the constitution should deal with, with a comprehensive text that is not subject to interpretation and interpretation, however! The 2005 constitution dealt with the dissolution of the House of Representatives with a confused text, “the bearer of aspects” in the text of Article (64/First) of the constitution, which states: – (The House of Representatives is dissolved by an absolute majority of its members, at the request of one-third of its members, or a request from the Prime Minister, With the approval of the President of the Republic).

This text has two contradictory interpretations:

First: The dissolution of the House of Representatives can only take place in one way, which is: The House of Representatives dissolves itself by voting by an absolute majority, and voting is based on a request submitted in one of two ways:

1- The request of one-third of the members of the House of Representatives.

2- The request of the Prime Minister approved by the President of the Republic.

That is, this opinion says in a single way to take the decision of dissolution (voting by an absolute majority), that is, the House of Representatives is not dissolved, unless it dissolves itself by itself (self-dissolution).

Second: The dissolution of the House of Representatives takes place in two ways:

1- The House of Representatives dissolves itself by a simple majority at the request of one-third of the members of the House of Representatives.

2- The House of Representatives is dissolved at the request of the Prime Minister and with the approval of the President of the Republic.

That is, this interpretation says: There are two ways to take the decision of dissolution, namely (the absolute majority of the members of the House of Representatives and the decision of the President of the Republic), meaning that the second interpretation says: With the self-dissolution of the House of Representatives, as he says by dissolving it through the executive authority.

The Iraqis differed in adopting one of these two interpretations, and both interpretations are borne by the text, because it is a confused, mixed text and is far from being accurate and definitive in meaning and application.

With the Sadrist movement demanding the dissolution of the House of Representatives by a decision of the Federal Supreme Court, another dilemma arose in the text, which is: Can the House of Representatives be dissolved by virtue of a ruling?

The truth is that the constitutional text did not mention the dissolution of the House of Representatives, other than the two methods it stipulated, but at the same time, it did not stipulate preventing the dissolution by a third method, because it did not use the phrase (the House of Representatives is not dissolved except by an absolute majority of the number of its members). The phrase at the beginning of the text, it was not forbidden to dissolve the House of Representatives by other than the two methods that it stipulated, but he used another phrase by saying (the House of Representatives is dissolved by an absolute majority) and this formula does not provide for the prevention of dissolution by another way.

It seems that this wording, which is not conclusive in preventing the solution, through a third way, provides an opportunity, with which many do not agree, to say that the solution is possible, by virtue of a ruling from the Federal Supreme Court, when the House of Representatives violates the Constitution, suspends its provisions and is unable for any reason to carry out its legislative and oversight duties, Because the parliament’s paralysis of the constitution makes him a son who disobeys him (that is to the constitution) deserves to be killed, like Ghulam Musa, which is what some constitutional courts around the world have adopted, including a historic ruling of the Palestinian Supreme Federal Court in 2018 No. 10/2018, although some consider it a political decision rather than a constitutional one.

However, it remains to adopt this opinion or the other opinion, which says that the solution is to be prevented, except in the two ways stipulated by the constitution, in Iraq, a matter that the Federal Supreme Court decides in the light of political controls and conditions, and very difficult and complex realistic, but this drafting gap may be in a constitution, No one respected him, it is the rescue ship from sedition that does not remain or leave.”

earthiq.news