BREAKING NEWS: Crackdown On Dissent in Iraq -Supreme Judicial Council Involved
A YouTube channel viewer (@wineguy1966) is concerned that the channel did not cover this information in today's video. The channel agrees that the information is important, however, we try "not" to be involved in Iraq's political procedures.
The channel has reason to believe the Trump Administration might say something about U.S. reporters surrounding Iraq. After all, President Trump did make a personal call to YouTuber Candice Owens about her reporting on France. We are not as free as we would like to think.
Iraq’s top judicial authority has issued a powerful order that could reshape the country’s political debate—and many fear it could silence it.
The Supreme Judicial Council has instructed prosecutors to take legal action against anyone accused of inciting or promoting the overthrow of Iraq’s political system. While officials say the move is meant to protect the state, activists, lawyers, and rights groups warn that the order is so broadly worded that it could be used to punish ordinary political criticism and restrict basic freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.
The directive was issued by Judge Faiq Zidan, President of the Supreme Judicial Council. It tells public prosecutors to pursue individuals who use traditional media or social media to “incite” actions against the state or “undermine the legitimacy” of Iraq’s political system. Critics say those phrases are unclear and dangerously flexible, leaving wide room for interpretation by authorities.
Legal experts told The New Arab that while the order may have a legal foundation, its vague language creates serious risks. Iraqi Kurdish lawyer Othman Sheikh Sdiq explained that Iraq’s constitution clearly distinguishes between political criticism and criminal acts. Iraq is defined as a democratic federal state, and calling for change through illegal or violent means is unlawful. However, criticizing the government, political parties, or state institutions is not a crime.
Sheikh Sdiq warned that the phrase “undermining the legitimacy of the state” is especially concerning because it lacks a clear legal definition. Without clarification, he said, the order could be used against journalists, activists, and citizens who express dissenting political views. He urged the Supreme Judicial Council and the Public Prosecution to clearly define the scope of the directive to prevent abuse.
The order, dated 26 November and marked confidential, was leaked on social media earlier this week, fueling public outrage. It is based on a letter from the National Security Advisory dated 14 October 2025 and was referred to the Judicial Discipline Commission. Judge Zidan instructed prosecutors to use their powers under Public Prosecution Law No. 49 of 2017, including opening criminal cases against those accused of calling for the overthrow of the political system or challenging its constitutional legitimacy.
The decision also includes a separate judicial order from 9 November 2025, appointing Judge Amer Hassan Shanta to investigate alleged violations identified by the Anti-Rumours Committee, a body tasked with monitoring unlawful digital content. Rights advocates fear this could expand surveillance and legal pressure on online speech.
Political observer Yassin Taha warned that the term “legitimacy of the state” goes far beyond elections and constitutional structures. He said it can be used to justify legal action against almost any activity authorities find inconvenient or threatening. Even if cases never result in convictions, the legal process itself can intimidate individuals and encourage self-censorship.
Taha noted that Iraqi authorities have recently increased legal actions against activists, writers, and critics. The growing number of cases, he said, creates a climate of fear where people think twice before speaking publicly, even when their speech is lawful.
The controversy has also drawn international attention. US Representative Joe Wilson posted on X accusing Judge Zidan of corruption and calling on the Trump administration to counter Iran’s influence in Iraq. In a later post, Wilson claimed the directive targets anyone who criticizes Iran-aligned political forces, warning that Iraq risks sliding back toward a police-state system similar to the Ba’ath era.
All of this comes despite Iraq’s 2005 constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, as long as those rights do not violate public order or public morals.
Iraqi rights groups have strongly condemned the directive. Adel Al-Khuza’i, head of the Iraqi Observatory for Rights and Freedoms, said the measures violate constitutional protections and contradict Public Prosecution Law No. 49 of 2017. He argued that the constitution does not recognize such a broadly defined crime and does not allow authorities to create new offenses through interpretation.
Al-Khuza’i warned that expanding criminal liability to include political speech and public criticism is unconstitutional and legally invalid. He cautioned that doing so risks turning the judiciary into a political enforcement tool rather than an independent legal institution.
Political commentator Laith Shabir also called for transparency and legal debate. In a Facebook post, he urged Judge Zidan to explain the directive in detail and open a public discussion, noting that the issue touches the core of Iraq’s democracy—constitutional legitimacy, free expression, and the line between lawful criticism and criminal conduct.
For many Iraqis, the concern is simple and urgent: if the law cannot clearly separate dissent from crime, people will stop speaking long before the courts ever rule.
And when silence replaces debate, democracy does not need to be overthrown.
It simply fades.
