Six judges of Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court, three reserve judges, resign; judiciary in turmoil

In a highly unusual and politically significant move, six judges of Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court, along with three reserve judges, have tendered their resignations in protest against a series of recent decisions by the Supreme Judicial Council, escalating tensions at the highest levels of Iraq’s judiciary.

The resignations were made public just hours after the ‘Federal Supreme Court postponed’ — for the ‘fourth time—’ its consideration of legal appeals submitted by President Abdul Latif Rashid and Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani.

The appeals challenge the court’s controversial decision to invalidate Law No. 42 of 2013, which ratified a bilateral maritime agreement with Kuwait governing navigation in the Khor Abdullah waterway.

Sources within Iraq’s judiciary told Al-Jarida that the resignations reflect deep-rooted institutional tensions between the Federal Supreme Court and the Court of Cassation, headed by Judge Faiq Zidane, who also chairs the Supreme Judicial Council, reports Al-Jarida daily.

The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, explained that the Federal Court views itself as the final and supreme authority in Iraq’s legal hierarchy. However, the Judicial Council—backed by the Court of Cassation—argues that under the Administrative Organization Law, it has the right to oversee and review the functioning of all judicial bodies.

These conflicting interpretations have sparked several high-profile disputes, including — the annulled general amnesty law, overturned by the Federal Court but later reinstated by the Judicial Council; the ongoing Khor Abdullah maritime dispute with Kuwait and contentious rulings on Iraq’s retirement law.

Sources noted that Judge Zidane proceeded with implementing laws previously struck down by the Federal Court, including the retirement law, adding to the friction.

According to judicial insiders, a core issue behind the resignations is procedural disagreement over how the Federal Court reached its decision to annul the Iraq-Kuwait maritime agreement.

The Court of Cassation contends that such a decision required a two-thirds majority, in line with procedural law, which the Federal Court allegedly failed to obtain. However, the Federal Court maintains that its rulings are final, binding, and not subject to review.

The sources emphasized that annulling the Khor Abdullah agreement could have serious diplomatic repercussions, possibly leading to a freeze in Iraqi-Kuwaiti relations, which Iraq is keen to avoid.

The sources further revealed that the decision to resign was made before Eid al-Adha, but was only officially announced yesterday.

The move reflects growing dissatisfaction among Federal Court members with what they perceive as encroachments by the Judicial Council on the court’s independence and authority.

Legal expert Dr. Ali Al-Tamimi dismissed concerns that the resignations would cause a prolonged constitutional vacuum. He told Al-Jarida that the appointment of replacement judges is constitutionally urgent, as the Federal Court cannot legally function without a full bench.

He added that the resignations may still be rejected by the Judicial Council, meaning the judges could remain in office and continue issuing rulings.

However, if the resignations are accepted, the Court’s current inability to reach a quorum would prevent it from convening—including on the highly sensitive appeals in the Khor Abdullah case.

The unprecedented resignations have triggered widespread debate in Iraq’s legal and political circles, raising urgent questions about the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the future of Iraq’s relations with neighboring Kuwait.