The Responsibility of the President of the Republic for Committing Constitutional Crimes in the Permanent Constitution of the Republic of Iraq 2005

Abstract

     In Article (61/Sixth/B) of the 2005 constitution, what the constitutional legislator described as the cases, which came exclusive to, namely, perjury of the constitutional oath, violation of the Constitution, and high treason, and it may be that it is committed by the President of the Republic. These facts were ambiguous in terms of stating the legal description, which called for proof that they are constitutional crimes according to the verbal structure of the constitutional text, which consisted of two parts: the criminalization part represented by the three mentioned facts, and the penalty part represented by the exemption from office. The judicial authority competent to consider this type of crimes of a constitutional nature is the Federal Supreme Court; however, the court's decision to relieve the president of the republic from his post after his conviction, the constitutional legislator restricted its implementation by a vote of the House of Representatives.

     The matter contradicts the constitutional text (94) which made the decisions of the Federal Supreme Court final and binding on all authorities, which are copies of what was stated restricting the implementation of the court’s decision to relieve the President of the Republic.

    At the same time, the consideration of accusing the Prime Minister and members of the Council of Ministers for committing constitutional crimes came from the authority of the Federal Court in an absolute manner. Contrary to what  the case is with members of the House of Representatives, as it is not mentioned in the 2005 constitution, nor has any law been legislated stating that the Federal Supreme Court has the power to consider accusing members of the House of Representatives of committing any of the constitutional crimes.