Nouri Al-Maliki says general amnesty law should exclude ‘perpetrators of terrorism’

BAGHDAD– In a speech on Monday, former PM Nouri Al-Maliki, leader of the State of Law Coalition, has set conditions for supporting the General Amnesty Law, stating it should exclude individuals involved in severe crimes such as murder, terrorism, and bombings while applying only to those convicted of minor offenses like misdemeanors and publishing-related crimes.

In early August, the Iraqi parliament conducted the first reading of proposed controversial General Amnesty Law. The call for a general amnesty law has been a key demand of Sunni political forces in the administration of Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani. However, opposition from Shia factions, ostensibly over concerns about releasing individuals linked to terrorism, has impeded progress on the legislation.

Sunni leaders argue that amending the law is crucial for releasing Sunnis they claim are wrongfully imprisoned.

Below is the full text of Al-Maliki’s speech on the General Amnesty:

We refer today to the demands that the political process has committed to, and that security, stability, and the formation of a national state require adherence to practical laws and constitutions.

The foundation of the political process that was formed is governments in which all communities participated, and therefore, its decisions represent all components, not the decisions of a specific party.

There is no doubt that our current government has set its political program, presented it to the parliament, and had it approved, making it binding on all the political forces that voted for it.

If we start from the premise that what has been agreed upon is binding on both parties—the government and the forces that agreed—this means we are facing a commitment that should not be bypassed for personal or partisan desires or interests. However, what unfortunately happened with some of these demands mentioned, including the General Amnesty Law, is a difference between the government’s commitment to it and the desire of some partners who want to take it as an achievement in front of their audience.

We all want to win over the public, but winning should be within the fundamentals of the law and the political process, and everyone wants to achieve accomplishments. We all support those who want to achieve an accomplishment, but the real stance is to commit to what has been agreed upon and approved by the Parliament.

Now, the government is required to adhere, and political forces should not be excessive in their demands, so that the process proceeds naturally, and the General Amnesty Law is achieved, and those who have served their punishment are released. Many in the prisons are distributed across a variety of charges, but the national interest requires that we do not compromise on those who have committed murder, terrorism, bombings, and obstructed reconstruction and services. There can be no concession on those who were evil in their actions.

We hope there will be an inclination towards amnesty for those who committed felonies, misdemeanors, ordinary charges, and publishing crimes. But what we consider an excess by the other side is raising the issue of the ‘secret informant.’ In truth, there is no such thing as a ‘secret informant,’ except for those who informed the judiciary of specific information and wanted to conceal their identities for fear of being killed.

There are those who claim that arrests were political and vindictive, and other such accusations. We must understand that those who hinder the progress towards the Amnesty Law are the ones raising such accusations. There are guidelines set by the judiciary that we must respect, as it is the entity that can determine who is included in the amnesty and who is not. Here lies the problem.

The government has committed to implementing the General Amnesty Law, but it must adhere to these particularities and the guidelines set by the judiciary. And when we say yes to the General Amnesty, we will say no for those whose hands are stained with blood, as they may return to their previous actions, and they are among those who cannot be trusted.

We want stability for the government and society, and we must not undermine those who have given their blood, efforts, and have been delayed in construction and reconstruction due to the terrorist acts committed by these individuals. We are with the Amnesty Law according to the guidelines permitted by the judiciary, and we are not with what the judiciary rejects. With this spirit, things must proceed.