A source familiar with the matter told The New Arab that al-Omairi had formally requested retirement. [Getty]
Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court has entered a state of paralysis after its president, Jassim Mohammed al-Omairi, has reportedly resigned, judicial sources said, amid escalating tensions over judicial independence and a contested maritime agreement with Kuwait.
A source familiar with the matter told The New Arab that al-Omairi had formally requested retirement. The move follows the earlier resignation of nine other members of the court—six full judges and three alternates—over what they described as interference by the Supreme Judicial Council, headed by Judge Faiq Zaidan.
The resignations come as the court repeatedly postpones a ruling on whether to reinstate a 2013 law ratifying Iraq’s maritime border agreement with Kuwait.
The court’s latest postponement follows appeals submitted by President Abdul Latif Rashid and Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, who are seeking to overturn the September 2023 ruling. The court initially deferred hearings on 22 April, rescheduling for 30 April, before delaying the case again to mid-June without offering a formal explanation.
In September 2023, the court ruled Law 42 of 2013 unconstitutional, citing the lack of a two-thirds parliamentary majority required for treaty ratification. The decision strained diplomatic relations with Kuwait and triggered a backlash from Iraqi lawmakers, who viewed the treaty as compromising national sovereignty.
Political interference rejected
As judicial tensions deepened, Parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani rejected a formal invitation from the Supreme Court last week to participate in a meeting with the State Administration Coalition.
In an official letter dated 19 June, Mashhadani cited Article 87 of the Iraqi Constitution, warning that such a meeting would risk “political interference in judicial matters”.
Observers say the resignations risk paralysing the court’s core functions, including validating laws, interpreting the Constitution, and certifying the results of Iraq’s parliamentary elections, scheduled for 11 November.
Kurdish legal expert Farman Hassan said the wave of resignations may be politically motivated. “If both the president and several judges resign without clear justification, it raises real suspicions of political manoeuvring,” he said.
Yousif Mohammed Sadiq, a constitutional law scholar and former speaker of the Kurdistan Parliament, said the Federal Supreme Court is facing a “highly sensitive turning point”. The resignation of six permanent judges and three alternates has placed the top constitutional body in a “complex legal predicament”.
According to Article 3 (Second) of Iraq’s amended Federal Supreme Court Law (Law No. 30 of 2005), the task of appointing replacements falls to a four-member committee consisting of the heads of the Supreme Judicial Council, the Federal Supreme Court, the Public Prosecution Authority, and the Judicial Supervisory Authority.
However, Sadiq noted that the process is complicated by “procedural ambiguity” and growing tensions between key committee members, particularly between the court’s president and the head of the Judicial Council, Judge Zaidan.
He questioned whether the resignations would be formally accepted. “If the chief justice’s resignation is accepted and the nine others are rejected, it may temporarily restore the court’s quorum,” he told TNA. “But any delay risks freezing the court’s work at a moment when it is needed most.”
Sadiq warned that unresolved vacancies could lead to “institutional paralysis and a constitutional vacuum”, potentially derailing the election timeline. He urged the urgent activation of legal mechanisms to fill the positions with transparency and political neutrality.
Controversial legacy
The Federal Supreme Court, established in 2005, is constitutionally mandated to resolve disputes between government branches, interpret laws, and ratify election results. However, it has faced repeated accusations of political bias.
Critics say the court has often aligned with former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, citing rulings that disqualified former Speaker Mohammed al-Halbousi, reinterpreted the “largest bloc” clause in 2010 to favour al-Maliki, ordered manual vote recounts in 2018, and invalidated the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government’s oil and gas law.
Zaidan, who is closely aligned with al-Maliki, has increasingly challenged the top court’s rulings, which are binding and cannot be appealed.
If al-Omairi’s resignation is accepted, it could pave the way for appointing a pro-Maliki judge to the top court and potentially reinstating the maritime agreement—a step opponents in parliament and civil society warn could provoke widespread public protests. Some Iraqi political observers claim that, before their resignations, the nine judges had rejected bribes aimed at persuading them to vote in favour of reinstating the maritime law.
Although the Constitution guarantees the court’s independence, no comprehensive law has been passed to insulate it from political influence. Repeated calls for such legislation have stalled in parliament.
The 2012 maritime accord, ratified by parliament in 2013, stems from a 1993 UN Security Council resolution demarcating Iraq’s borders following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. It divides control of the 120-kilometre Khor Abdullah waterway between Kuwait’s Warbah and Bubiyan islands and Iraq’s Al-Faw Peninsula, providing Iraq access to the port of Umm Qasr.
Jamal al-Halbousi, a former Iraqi official involved in border demarcation, previously said to TNA that reviving the deal could cost Iraq “significant oilfields such as Jamal Twaina 1 and 2, vast maritime zones, and critical customs revenues”.
He added that only parliament, with a supermajority, holds the constitutional authority to approve such treaties.
Now, with its leadership vacant and legal authority compromised, Iraq’s highest court faces a crisis that threatens both the rule of law and the country’s democratic stability.
