The judicial system was intended to be a refuge where the persecuted could seek recourse when their rights are violated and when they are slandered since it came into being in what is now a bygone era. All kinds of governance systems task their judicial institutions with presiding over disputes and issuing judgments about them, and it was entrusted with delivering justice to citizens and allowing them to defend themselves against persecution. These systems of governance granted it the final say; nothing and no individual or institution can reverse its rulings or impede their implementation. Iraq was no exception. Its 2005 constitution granted the judiciary these same powers, and its constitution guaranteed that this institution is distanced from the political minefields, free of political pressure. It gave judicial decisions in general and those of the Federal Supreme Court in particular- a force above all else and all state institutions- finality. Indeed, all state institutions are obliged to accept and recognize the decisions of this court entrusted with upholding the rights and freedoms of individuals, and it did not establish a mechanism for contradicting its rulings or appealing them.
This perhaps stems from the constitution’s assumption that it would be absolutely impartial, unprejudiced by rivals’ orientations, that it would have no objective whatsoever beyond enforcing the constitution and laying its foundations. At the time, those who were drafting it wanted to introduce an era in which rights and freedoms flourish, and the principles of democracy, justice and fairness are applied after decades of oppression and injustice. However, but the era in the new Iraq did not last long, a lot was said about the biases brimming within the federal judiciary and its favoring of this or that faction. Suspicions about the faction that saw many decisions go its way were particularly strong, and it wouldn’t take someone looking into the matter objectively a long time to affirm that several rulings were issued to suit big players and prominent figures. Nonetheless, it would be a timid analysis and a cautious assessment that finds that those raising their voices against some of those unfair decisions are swiftly prosecuted for contempt of the judiciary and undermining its reputation. The persecuted, under such circumstances, have no choice but to quell their anger and be patient, even if they are part of the executive. Sharing Mr. Haider al-Abadi’s famous tweet, in which he asks: “Where can grains of wheat settle their grievances when chickens are the arbiters,” spares us the need to go into details.
It is no secret that Parliament once withdrew its confidence in me- and a political ruling beyond a shadow of a doubt. The proof that it is political is that the body issuing it is political par excellence; its decisions are not inviolable in any sense. The Commission of Integrity acquitting me of all the accusations that Parliament had leveled against is further proof. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Finance, which I had led, as well as the Ministry of Justice- being an independent and neutral body- said that they have no complaints against me because of the lack of evidence that I had failed to meet any of my duties. If doing so did not make the article too long, I would have cited these acquittals and their numbers and the dates in which they had been issued. However, these parties are familiar with them, as is the Federal Supreme Court, which I had characterized as a body uphold and thought it would base its decision on the rulings of Commission of Integrity and the fact that neither the ministries I headed nor any other neutral party that became involved in the investigation had filed a complaint against me.
However, the gray day when the court issued its bizarre ruling deeming my candidacy for President of the Republic of Iraq unconstitutional was founded on extremely strange and bewildering logic. It cited Parliament’s decision to withdraw its confidence from me as the reason for depriving me of the right to take part in the race to become President. At that time, dozens of questions, whose background only those deeply familiar with what goes on behind the scenes know, were posed to me. Isn’t the federal judiciary aware that the decision to withdraw confidence, even if it were the right one, has no legal implications beyond rendering the minister resigned? Is the federal judiciary not obligated to issue its rulings in accordance with the constitution rather than decisions made by other bodies whose decisions are not final in any way, shape or form? Is the court genuinely unaware that the accusations leveled against me by some politicized deputies have been proven false by the judiciary and the investigations have proven? Is it right for the Parliament’s decision, which the judiciary and investigations have proven baseless, to form a basis for depriving citizens of the rights and freedoms to fairly take part in politics and governing the country? Was the court justice in its ruling that claimed the Parliamentary decision undermines my reputation and integrity despite this not being mentioned in the constitution and the decision not being definitive?
These questions and others left me and many legal experts and constitutional specialists despondently pondering the fate of the constitutional article stipulating that the accused are innocent until proven guilty in a fair, legal trial, to say nothing about those whose innocence had been proven. Are they not more entitled to enjoy all their rights? I do not want to hide the fact that I was thinking of bringing a case against Parliament because of its decision to withdraw confidence from me on the grounds that had been proven partisan and to have been an example of abuse of power and political slander. And now I receive this historic Federal Supreme Court ruling declaring citizens can be convicted even if proven innocent and that the politicized decisions that the judiciary and investigation have proven baseless suffice to deprive citizens of their political rights. Indeed, it demonstrates that the constitution’s provisions exist merely for domestic consumption and to facilitate hypocrisy at the international level. In reality, these rights and freedoms are hollow. They are crumbling. The court interprets their limits as it wishes, and the ruling is perhaps akin to bidding any hopes that the oppressed and persecuted could receive justice. We are in an era in which the judiciary is trapped in the maze of politics, if not an era when the judiciary is controlled by politics and run by the powerful!
