In the aftermath of Iraq’s November 2025 parliamentary elections, the country finds itself navigating a legal and political maze as authorities work to finalize results, process a tidal wave of appeals, and ensure the machinery of government continues to function—albeit with significant limitations. The latest developments from Baghdad and Erbil reveal a dynamic, sometimes confusing, but ultimately determined effort to preserve institutional continuity during a delicate transition.
As of Wednesday, November 26, Iraq’s Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) reported it had processed responses to 528 out of the 872 appeals submitted regarding the parliamentary election results, according to the Iraqi News Agency. Jumana Al-Ghalai, spokesperson for IHEC, confirmed that the most recent batch of 122 appeals would be sent to the judicial committee for review and decisions. The commission had previously announced the end of the appeals submission period on Thursday, November 14, after receiving more than 800 challenges to the election’s outcome.
The sheer volume of appeals—872 in total—reflects the high stakes and deep contestation surrounding the November 11, 2025, vote. IHEC released the final results last week, confirming a voter turnout above 56 percent and detailing the distribution of all 329 parliamentary seats across Iraq’s 18 governorates. These results, however, remain provisional until the judicial panel completes its review of all challenges and the Federal Supreme Court ratifies the outcome.
Under Law No. 31 of 2019, IHEC has seven working days to prepare answers for the judicial panel reviewing the appeals, with the panel itself then granted 10 working days to issue rulings. Once all appeals are resolved, the judicial panel will forward the final results to the Federal Supreme Court for official ratification. This layered process is designed to ensure transparency and legal rigor, but it also introduces a period of uncertainty as the country waits for its new parliament to be confirmed.
Adding to the complexity, Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court issued a pivotal ruling on Monday, November 24, declaring that the current parliament’s term had ended and that the cabinet formed under it was now restricted to caretaker functions only. This decision, prompted by a request from President Abdul Latif Rashid, sought to clarify the legal standing of both the legislative and executive branches during the post-election limbo.
Yet, the very next day, the Federal Supreme Court took further action to prevent an institutional vacuum that could paralyze government operations. On Tuesday, November 25, the Court restored administrative and financial powers to the presidency of the Iraqi parliament—a move widely interpreted as a necessary corrective to its earlier ruling. As reported by Kurdistan24, the restoration ensures that the parliament’s leadership can continue to manage internal affairs, pay salaries, maintain facilities, and oversee logistical operations until the new parliament is officially seated.
Shakhawan Abdullah, Deputy Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament, described the court’s decision as a “correction of a previous decision by the court which had decided the end of the term of the fifth session.” According to Abdullah, this measure was essential to clarify the boundaries of power during the interim period between the fifth and sixth parliamentary sessions, and to keep the legislative institution running smoothly.
The Federal Supreme Court’s letter, signed by its president Munzir Ibrahim Hussein, drew a clear distinction between the types of authority restored and those withheld. While the parliament presidency now retains full administrative and financial powers, it “only does not have the right to issue laws and supervise their executive power.” In other words, the legislative body can keep its doors open and its staff paid, but it cannot pass new laws or oversee the government’s day-to-day activities. This careful calibration preserves the separation of powers and acknowledges that, technically, the legislative term has ended.
The decision also reinforced strict limitations on the caretaker government. According to the court, the caretaker government and the prime minister are prohibited from making strategic decisions or formulating long-term plans during this transitional phase. The rationale is straightforward: a temporary administration should not bind the incoming government to major policy commitments or international agreements that it may not support. As Munzir Ibrahim Hussein emphasized, the primary goal of these legal measures is “to ensure the continuity of the work of the state’s institutions and public services in an orderly manner.”
This series of judicial interventions comes against a backdrop of political uncertainty and, at times, public frustration. The abrupt cessation of the fifth session’s term had created a gray area regarding who could manage the parliament’s internal affairs, prompting concerns about administrative paralysis. By restoring limited powers to the parliamentary leadership, the judiciary has attempted to strike a balance—allowing the state to function without overstepping constitutional boundaries or undermining the legitimacy of the incoming parliament.
The context for these decisions is the immediate aftermath of Iraq’s highly contested elections. With more than 800 appeals filed and only a little over half processed so far, the pathway to a fully certified new parliament remains fraught. The judicial panel’s eventual rulings on the appeals, and the Supreme Court’s final ratification, will be closely watched by political parties, civil society, and international observers alike.
For many Iraqis, the process may feel slow, even agonizing, but there is a method to the legal meticulousness. Each step—from the careful review of appeals to the incremental restoration of parliamentary powers—is intended to safeguard the legitimacy of the country’s democratic institutions. The judiciary’s actions also reflect a broader concern: that any hint of a power vacuum could invite instability at a time when Iraq’s security and economic challenges remain acute.
As the country waits for the final certification of its new parliament and the eventual formation of a new government, the focus remains on preserving order and continuity. The Federal Supreme Court’s rulings, while not without controversy, have provided a legal framework for managing the transition without halting the essential functions of the state. The next few weeks will be decisive, as the remaining appeals are processed and the legal machinery grinds toward a conclusion that, Iraqis hope, will bring both certainty and renewed legitimacy to their political system.
While the dust has not yet settled on Iraq’s election saga, the country’s institutions have so far managed to avoid the worst-case scenario of administrative paralysis. The coming days will test whether this delicate balance can be maintained—and whether the judiciary’s careful navigation of the crisis will be enough to steer Iraq safely into its next political chapter.
