The appointment of senior officials in Iraq has been a long-running contentious issue among the political elite. What is often called the “wikala system” refers to the appointment of officials in an acting capacity, often for an indefinite period of time, because neither the Council of Ministers nor the Council of Representatives are willing to sign off on the appointments.
Since elite politics in Iraq is driven by consensus, the political blocs rarely agree to approve permanent senior appointments. Only when every party is satisfied with their share of appointments does the approval process move forward. For instance, in August 2023, parliament voted to approve the permanent appointment of the prime minister’s chief of staff after lengthy negotiations between the blocs.
Which positions does parliament need to approve?
Article 61 of the constitution states that parliamentary approval is required for the appointment of the following posts:
A. The President and members of the Federal Court of Cassation, the Chief Public Prosecutor, and the President of Judicial Oversight Commission by an absolute majority, based on a proposal from the Higher Juridical Council.
B. Ambassadors and those with special grades, based on a proposal from the Council of Ministers.
C. The Iraqi Army Chief of Staff, his assistants, those of the rank of division commander and above, and the director of the intelligence service, based on a proposal from the Council of Ministers.
The term “special grades” is contentious because the constitution does not define who they are. To add to the confusion, within the civil service hierarchy, senior grade A refers to ministers and deputy ministers, while senior grade B refers to directors general.
Do DGs need parliamentary approval?
The government’s recent permanent appointment of 140 DGs through cabinet approval is based on the Civil Service Law of 1960, which explicitly states that DG appointments are approved by the Council of Ministers.
Furthermore, the Federal Supreme Court holds the view that DGs are not special grades.
Meanwhile, parliamentary blocs have sought to pressure successive governments to disband the wikala system through legislation, but without success. The blocs are driven by a desire to curtail the power of the prime minister to undertake wikala appointments because it undermines their leverage over executive decision-making.
In 2019, parliament inserted a clause in the federal budget law that mandated an end to the wikala system by June 30, 2019. Article 58 of the law stated that senior officials who had been appointed in an acting capacity beyond that point should be stripped of their financial and administrative authorities.
Then in the 2021 budget law, Article 58 was amended to make it even clearer, mandating the Council of Ministers to send the names of heads of independent bodies, special grades, deputy ministers and advisors to parliament for approval before June 30, 2021.
In the 2023-25 budget law, parliament combined the provisions from 2019 and 2021 into Article 71, which mandated the end to the wikala system by November 30, 2023, and required the government to send the names of special grades that were appointed in an acting capacity to parliament.
In December 2023, the Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction on Article 71 at the government's request, which claimed that the provision undermined the principle of separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. The court suspended the enforcement of Article 71, which mandates officials in acting capacities to be stripped of their administrative and financial authorities, in order to "ensure the continued operation of public facilities without disruption," while also mandating that the government remains "committed to implementing [Article 71] concerning the termination of acting roles."
This ruling has granted the Sudani government temporary relief, but it could face legal challenges if it fails to show progress in permanently appointing officials.