2025-08-21T12:18:27+00:00
font
Enable Reading Mode
A-
A
A+
Shafaq News
– Baghdad
Iraq’s
legislative record since 2003 has been marked by a series of controversial laws
that fuel political disputes, provoke constitutional challenges, and deepen
public mistrust of governing institutions.
The latest
example is the diplomatic passport amendment, a law that stirred fierce debate
over privilege, equality, and the rule of law.
On August
20, Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court struck down the law expanding access to
diplomatic passports, declaring it unconstitutional in a decision widely viewed
as a reaffirmation of judicial oversight over parliamentary privilege.
The Foreign
Ministry welcomed the ruling, crediting the efforts of Deputy Prime Minister
and Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein and his legal team. It described the judgment
as essential to protecting a “sovereign document that represents the identity
and reputation of the state.”
The annulled
law, No. 6 of 2025, amended the 2015 Passport Law to grant diplomatic passports
not only to senior officials but also to their spouses, dependents, and, in
some cases, retired figures.
Published
earlier this year in the official gazette al-Waqa’i al-Iraqiya, the amendment
effectively transformed the diplomatic passport into a permanent family
entitlement.
Parliament
approved the amendment during the first session of its fifth electoral cycle,
despite sharp criticism from citizens and legal experts who argued that Iraq
faced far more pressing challenges.
Critics
described it as another example of the state prioritizing elite entitlements
while economic instability, corruption, and human rights crises remain
unresolved.
Figures from
the Interior Ministry show that between 4,000 and 4,200 diplomatic passports
were issued in just one year, beginning in October 2021. In total, more than
35,000 diplomatic passports have been issued—an exceptionally high figure
compared to larger states such as India or Japan, which issue fewer than
20,000.
Legal and
Constitutional Concerns
Legal expert
Ali al-Tamimi told Shafaq News that the Supreme Court’s ruling rested on
Articles 14, 15, 47, and 80 of the Constitution, which enshrine equality,
separation of powers, and the proper scope of executive authority. He recalled
that the Court had initially issued an injunction suspending implementation of
the law, a step that signaled its unconstitutionality even before the final
judgment.
Al-Tamimi
emphasized that under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and
the 1969 Vienna Convention on Special Missions, diplomatic passports are
strictly tied to active diplomatic service. Once an assignment ends, the
privilege must expire.
Extending
passports to family members and retirees, he said, was a “serious error” that
contravened international law and turned the passport into an inherited
privilege rather than a state instrument.
He added
that Iraq is constitutionally bound under Article 8 to respect international
treaties. Granting diplomatic passports to spouses and children, or retaining
them after retirement, directly undermines these obligations. “Immunity is
linked to service, and it cannot be transferred as if it were part of a salary
or inheritance.”
According to
al-Tamimi, had the amendment limited diplomatic passports to officials for the
duration of their service — without extending them to family members — it might
have aligned with both the Constitution and international norms. Instead, by
expanding eligibility, “Iraq diverged from global practice, where such
documents are issued sparingly and often reserved for those who have made
exceptional contributions to public life.”
Written and edited by Shafaq News staff.
