Did the Libyan Speaker of Parliament lose his supporters within the Supreme Council of State?

Cairo: «Middle East»
During the first session of the Libyan Parliament in the new year, its Speaker, Aguila Saleh, was keen to confirm that his council was alone in approving the country’s legislation at this stage, in accordance with the Libyan Political Agreement signed at the end of 2015. He stressed that consultation with the Supreme Council of State was limited to “election and referendum laws only,” which is what Many questions were raised about the impact of the repercussions of this new dispute between the two chambers on the fate of the relationship between them, and determining the position of the members of the Supreme Council of State who were known in recent months to identify to a large degree with Parliament’s decisions, especially after Saleh’s statements.

First, a member of the Supreme Council of State, Muhammad Moazib, believes that Saleh’s statements will contribute to changing many of the positions of the members of the Supreme Council of State, and may be deducted from his and his council’s balance. In a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat, he said that Saleh’s statements “violate the terms of the political agreement,” pointing out that some members within the Supreme Council of State sensed a tone of escalation in those statements, which sparked their criticism of the matter. However, Moazib went on to confirm that these changes in positions were “confined to the scope of what is known as the gray bloc of members of the Supreme Council of State.”

He said that the Supreme Council of State “has more than one current. There is a current that tends to identify with the positions of Parliament, and another, which is more numerous, seeks to build the state and unify its institutions through holding elections, according to laws that are accepted by various forces.” He also talked about “a gray bloc whose positions change depending on the opinions presented from time to time.” Many of them have now decided, after these statements, to join the ranks of the majority movement in the State Council.”

Moazib expected the presence of “pent-up anger towards these statements by members of the movement that is aligned with the positions of Parliament,” and he explained: “They preferred to suppress their anger towards what Saleh said because of their desire to move forward, and for the policy of rapprochement with him and his council towards forming a new government for the country that would pave the way for holding elections, as they say. This is regardless of the continuing dispute over electoral laws,” stressing that the dominant movement at the top of the state is basing its position on rejecting Parliament alone in approving laws “as stated in Article Nineteen of the Political Agreement.”

This article stipulates that “draft laws are submitted by the government, which then presents them to the highest state to express an opinion, reject or accept, within 21 days, before referring them to Parliament for discussion and approval.” But unfortunately, there is a tendency for Parliament to issue a number of laws, which represent a violation of the principle of separation of the three powers, such as its recent approval of the law establishing the Supreme Authority for Hajj and Umrah, that is, transferring the subordination of an executive body to a legislative authority, as well as some other laws and decisions concerned with organizing the judiciary.

The head of the Supreme Council of State, Mohamed Takala, had called on Saleh to cancel the law establishing the General Authority for Hajj and Umrah. Takala also asked Aguila to stop issuing any laws during the current crisis stage, except within the limits agreed upon by the two councils, as well as the rest of the political parties and the requirements of the stage.

On the other hand, a member of the Supreme Council of State, Saad bin Sharada, believed that Saleh’s statements “did not bother anyone because they were consistent with the terms of the political agreement, which stipulated that Parliament is the sole legislative authority in the country during the transitional phase, and that consultation and coordination with the Supreme Council of State is limited to the articulated laws, that is, Elections, referendum and budget.

Ben Charada explained to Asharq Al-Awsat that “the annoyance and accusations that Parliament was seeking to monopolize power and abandon its partnership with the Supreme Council of State came only from the team that was setting Parliament as hostility,” attributing this “political bickering,” in his words, to the proximity of this movement to the national unity government. , headed by Abdul Hamid Al-Dabaiba.

Ben Charada also pointed out that “the two chambers agreed on the 13th amendment to the Constitutional Declaration, which resulted in the formation of an equally joint committee to prepare electoral laws,” noting that it had been approved by Parliament since the beginning of last October, which means Parliament’s commitment to the terms of the agreement. The politician, in coordination and consultation with his council regarding the election laws.

Ben Charada rejected what some voices suggested that the issuance of any new legislation be postponed until there is agreement to conduct the electoral process first, pointing out “the possibility of the existence of an obstacle or a legislative vacuum that should not be left until consensus on the electoral process is completed, especially in light of the presence of a team that aims to obstruct as a pretext.” “There is no consensus on electoral laws.”