100 Signatures for Repeating the Federal Court Law: Legislation was passed by a majority, not two-th

[size=52]100 Signatures for Repeating the Federal Court Law: Legislation was passed by a majority, not two-thirds[/size]

[size=45]Multiple parliamentary blocs collected more than a hundred signatures to demand a re-vote on Federal Court Law No. 30 of 2005, considering that passing this amendment by the legislative authority by a simple majority is contrary to the constitution, which requires two thirds.[/size]
[size=45]Representative Bahar Mahmoud, a member of the legal committee in the House of Representatives, stated in a statement to (Al-Mada) that "the amendment to the Federal Court Law, which was enacted by the House of Representatives, limited the number of members to nine judges of the first class whose service is not less than fifteen years and who are still in service." "The law grants the Supreme Judicial Council, judicial supervision, and the Public Prosecution the right to choose judges of the Federal Court."[/size]
[size=45]The House of Representatives voted on Federal Supreme Court Law No. 30 of 2005, and the amendment was passed by a majority of votes during the session attended by 204 representatives out of 329. After the voting was completed, the President of the Supreme Judicial Council, Judge Faik Zaidan, invited the members of the Supreme Judicial Council to meet on Monday morning, corresponding to March 22, 2021. To implement the Federal Court Law Amendment Law No. 30 of 2005, which was approved by the House of Representatives on March 18, 2021, and to honor the president and members of the current Federal Court on the occasion of their retirement referral. Mahmoud added that “after nominating the new members of the court, they will take the oath before the President of the Republic to practice their work normally after referring the current members of the court to retirement,” noting that “the Judicial Council has begun to implement the Federal Court’s law because Parliament has put in place a clause that considers that the amended law becomes effective after its approval. Immediately, that is, before it was published in the Al-Waqi’a newspaper. The representative of the Sulaymaniyah Governorate expresses her surprise at "passing the amendment of the Federal Court Law by a simple majority," indicating that "this procedure will place the Federal Court in the circle of inquiries from all political and social parties because the constitution requires the existence of two thirds during the amendment of its law." And she continues, "Many parties and authorities have not submitted an appeal to the court’s law before the new court because the court will be both an opponent and a judgment," excluding "the acceptance of any appeal by the new court, which will try to preserve its existence."[/size]
[size=45]She pointed out that “there is a campaign within the House of Representatives that resulted in the collection of more than a hundred signatures to re-vote on the Federal Court Law by two-thirds of its members for two reasons. Passing the amendment by majority is an unconstitutional procedure, in addition to the existence of Federal Court Decision No. 38 of 2019 stipulating that the amendment of the Court’s law Federalism needs two thirds. Politically, the legislation of this law will be a dangerous precedent that can be relied upon in amending the court’s law at any moment.[/size]
[size=45]The Federal Supreme Court ruled that Article (3) of its Law No. (30) of 2005 is unconstitutional, which authorizes the Judicial Council the authority to nominate the president and members of the court, asking the House of Representatives to legislate an alternative article that is consistent with the provisions of the constitution.[/size]
[size=45]The Federal Court’s appeal to this article constituted a turning point in the relationship between it and the Supreme Judicial Council, which demanded in July of last year the House of Representatives to expedite the completion and passage of the Federal Court bill to overcome this constitutional problem in which the judicial authority occurred.[/size]
[size=45]MP Bahar points out that the reason for Parliament resorting to passing this law to a simple majority is not completing the quorum, which is the presence of two-thirds of the number of court members, "warning that" failure to amend the law puts the members of the court in front of many problems and challenges. "[/size]
[size=45]For his part, Rahim Al-Ugaili presented the most important challenges facing the Federal Supreme Court with its new formation in his tweet, saying that “political parties and influential forces will seek and pressure to ensure their representatives inside the court and each of them nominate a representative on his part, and the extent to which the nominating bodies can face these pressures and not Dealing with it is a very difficult and complicated matter. Al-Aqili believes that “the nomination may also face the problem of differing views between the current Federal Supreme Court and the Supreme Judicial Council,” adding that “the jurisprudence and rulings of the previous court that were the subject of controversy and controversy - such as the interpretation of the largest bloc and the independence of independent bodies - will constitute the most important challenge for the court in its new formation.” .[/size]
[size=45]Al-Aqili asks: “Will you adopt the same jurisprudence and previous positions or amend them for new ones, and the amendment will never be easy?” Indicating that the court “will face appeals that the amendment that came with it will be unconstitutional and its judges will be in conflict with interests because if they decide that the amendment is unconstitutional, they lose. Their positions are in court. ” In addition, the victory coalition led by Haider al-Abadi announced, on Friday, its rejection of the term "constitutional balance", while demanding its abolition. Al-Nasr said in a statement that Al-Mada obtained a copy of, that he “rejects the term (constitutional equilibrium) that came in Article (4A) of the Federal Supreme Court Law, and considers it a dangerous precedent by introducing terms that do not have a constitutional and legal basis, and legitimizes ethno-sectarian quotas in the structure The state and the judiciary in particular.[/size]
[size=45][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Here we go again...... Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr