21 Jan Saddam Prosecutor Transferred from the IHT — Likely Illegally
The media may have forgotten about the Iraqi High Tribunal now that Saddam is dead and buried, but that doesn’t mean its problems have gone away. Case in point — the talented Chief Prosecutor at Saddam’s trial, Jaffar al-Moussawi, has been demoted and transferred after criticizing the Tribunal’s “financial and ethical corruption” and opposing the execution of Sultan Hashem, Saddam’s former defense minister:
He said the Iraqi High Tribunal (IHT), set up to try former members of Saddam’s regime, had transferred him from Baghdad to the northern city of Sulaimaniya as an investigative judge.
The head of the tribunal, Abdul-Razak al-Shahine, could not be reached for comment. His son said he was travelling in the United States and that no telephone number was available to contact him. The tribunal does not currently have a spokesman.
Dressed in his red and black prosecutor’s robes, Moussawi became a familiar face during Saddam’s televised 2006 trial for crimes against humanity. Saddam was hanged on December 30, 2006.
“The decision to remove me was made after I wrote a memo on January 14 to the IHT head disclosing legal breaches and violations committed by judges inside the court,” Moussawi said.
“The more serious issue which I mentioned in my memo was the financial and ethical corruption inside the court.”
He also said he was being targeted for his request to the court to reduce Saddam minister Hashem’s death sentence.
[snip]
Moussawi said the tribunal did not have the power to transfer him. This could only be done by the presidency council, which includes Talabani and Hashemi.
“The prosecution is an independent body and is not under the authority of the court. I will never obey this order,” said Moussawi, who served as chief prosecutor for three years.
Moussawi’s legal position appears sound. Article 4(Fourth) of the IHT Statute provides that “[t]he Presidency Council in accordance with a proposal from the Council of Ministers shall have the right to transfer Judges and Public Prosecutors from the Court to the Higher Judicial Council for any reason.” And although Article 6(First) authorizes the “Judges and Public Prosecutors Affairs Committee” — a five-member committee elected by and from the IHT’s judges and prosecutors — to fire a prosecutor, as well, Article 6(Second) makes clear that the Committee’s decisions are simply advisory:
Second: The committee shall submit a recommendation, after the appeal before the extended panel of the Federal Court of Cassation is denied, to the Council of Ministers to pass a resolution from the Presidency Council terminating the service of a judge or a public prosecutor, including the chief justice in case the provisions of Article (6) of this Law are met.
Like Article 4, then, Article 6 makes the Presidency Council the ultimate arbiter of whether a prosecutor should be removed from the IHT. The Presidency Council has not authorized Moussawi’s demotion and transfer — which means they are in direct violation of the IHT Statute.
Then again, when did that ever stop the IHT?
Professor Heller,
I have a quick question while we are talking about the Middle East. About a week ago, there was a significant international incident between the U.S. and Iran in the Persian Gulf (I will go with “Persian” since we are talking about Iran). U.S. warships, claiming rights of innocent passge in the Gulf, were nonetheless engagaged in seemingly hostile acts by the Iranian Navy. CNN and others covered the story with some treating it as the headline of the day.
The odd thing about this is that there was no international legal commentary. Although this seems like a great internaional legal event to discuss, no one really discussed the incident as a violation of international law.
I quess my question is why do you think certain acts in the Middle East get analyzed via the rubric of internatioanl law, while some don’t.
NSD,
It’s an excellent question, and I wish I had a better answer for you. My sense is that the Iranian-US incident didn’t get much legal attention because there aren’t that many people who have a good understanding of that area of international law. Whether Israel’s electricity blockade is a war crime is fairly easy. Whether Iran’s actions were illegal is far more difficult. I wouldn’t know where to begin to answer that question…
Readers? Any thoughts?
A thought: It transpired fairly quickly that the official US position collapsed. The video presented by the Navy had been stitched together. Were there in fact any “hostile acts” by the Iranians? You don’t know, but the US has dropped the matter entirely.
This “why do you think certain acts in the Middle East get analyzed via the rubric of internatioanl law, while some don’t” is not a question at all. Say what you mean. Don’t make us guess.
Stiv,
I don’t think that’s a fair interpretation of NSD’s question. You’re right about the Iranian incident — but I take NSD’s question to be more general, about why certain events are analyzed from an IL standpoint but others aren’t. As for the blog, the answer is partly our own expertise — or lack thereof regarding many areas of IL. As for the media generally, I don’t know.
Kevin
P.S. You have the strangest pseudonym for a commenter on an international law blog. At least I assume it’s a pseudonym, given that Stiv Bators is (1) dead, having been run over by a car in Paris more than a decade ago; and (2) unlikely to have been interested in international law while alive.
P.P.S. That said, Lords of the New Church’s cover of Madonna’s “Like a Virgin” remains one of the great covers of all time…
Kevin,
Since it’s fairly clear why there’s little legal commentary on “the Iraninan incident”, I thought it would be best if The NewStream had make some specific reference to “certain acts” that get analyzed and “some” that don’t. His construction seemed to make clear there was more than just this incident with Iran in his mind — one might guess he may have been thinking about coverage of actions by the state of Israel (compared to… what?), but we really don’t know, do we? To me, his post came across as insinuative rather than communicative.
PS I would feel badly impersonating the living — perhaps someone would be fooled — so I go to the graveyard for my pseudonyms.