The Federal Court overturned the law of the mandate of the three presidencies

Legal representative: Denunciation of the Federal Court to determine the state of the three presidencies was technically

Monday, August 26 / August 2013 16:33

[Baghdad – where]

Parliamentary Legal Committee emphasized that the Federal Court overturned the law of the mandate of the three presidencies.

The source said told all of Iraq [where] on Monday that “the Federal Court overturned the law of the mandate of the three presidencies voted by the House of Representatives.”

The vice president of the Prince Kanani’s [where] that “the Federal Court overturned the law technically as the proposed law is not a bill.”

Kanani said that “overturn the law also coincided with the veto of Article [23] of the Law on Elections of Kirkuk”

The Federal Court had decided earlier in the day set aside Article 23 of the Law on Elections of Kirkuk, which began in 2008, ahead of the local elections that took place in Iraq, 2009.

Article [23] of the Act, which strongly objected to by the Kurds, the local distribution of seats equally among Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen and other allocated quota for Christians.

The House of Representatives has approved, on 26 January last second bill the mandate three presidencies بدورتين, a majority of 170 votes and county deputies State of Law coalition led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

He announced a coalition of state law, an appeal to the Federal Court to overturn the law that is contrary to the Constitution and the law did not provide the government according to constitutional procedures.

He has stressed that “the Federal Court will not pass the mandate of law three presidencies بدورتين, and the House of Representatives is not entitled to issue only after the legislation introduced by the government.”

And warned the Liberal Parliamentary Bloc of the Sadrist movement of the Federal Court to decide the decision challenged to extend the mandate of the three presidencies, while confirming that one of the most prominent political differences is the Federal Court decisions that serve the interests of the State of Law coalition.

A spokesman for the bright Naji bloc that “dangerous decision on the appeal the decision to extend the mandate of the three presidencies or employ this law in accordance with the acquis and the interests of the state law, which it claims to be unconstitutional and must be undone.”

The [where] have been published on the third of July, the past record of the case presented by al-Maliki to the Federal Supreme Court on House Speaker Osama Najafi about the enactment of the mandate of the three presidencies.

According to some paragraphs of the text of the record made by the client-Maliki said “concerns the legislation is a cornerstone of the legislation because the law determining the duration of the mandate of the President of the Republic and President of the House of Representatives and the President of the Council of Ministers was not based on concerns the public interest in Sir measures enacted as it beat him political desire members of the House of Representatives So this law, I miss the very reason issued was based on the intentions and goals of the legislative authority only violated the provisions of the Constitution. ”

He added that “it is strange that injects the law of the mandate of the three presidencies sentences have nothing to do originally a proposal of law and this is what happened in the text of articles [5,6] of the law, which one on the resignation of the Council of Ministers in the absence of more than half of its members either Article other related government caretaker in the event of an end to the House of Representatives or dissolved if these things organized by the Constitution in Articles [64.85] which cases received limited and may not be growing under the law to be issued for this purpose.

He continued that “the law included an explicit violation of the constitution, as Article [1 / First] of the Act provides that [ending the term of the President of the Republic the end of the election cycle for the House of Representatives] While this provision is associated concomitant presence and عدما with another provision contained in the Constitution and is a complement to as Article [72 / II / b] on the continuation of the work of the President his duties until after the elections the new Parliament and a meeting and the election of the president instead of him and hence the revenue one of these two provisions in the law without judging the other would lead to disruption of accidentally constitutional legislator . ”

According to the demands of the case submitted to the Federal Court by my client Prosecutor [Maliki] on the defendant Najafi law regarding the mandate of the three presidencies, two of the Federal Court demands, namely:

I – rule the law unconstitutional determine the duration of the mandate of the President of the Republic and President of the House of Representatives and the President of Council of Ministers, for violating the provisions of the Constitution and what it settled constitutional judiciary in Iraq.

Secondly – Download the defendant Najafi lawsuit expenses and attorneys’ fees, all the while retaining my clients to provide any other defenses in the light of new facts of the case. 2 ended.

alliraqnews.com