It stands to reason that after decades of corruption and dictatorship, that the Libyan people might want to exclude those they saw as part of the previous regime from power of any kind in the “new Libya”.

But as Fred Abrahams, a special adviser at the US-based international organization, Human Rights Watch, said in January, “bans on public office and senior positions should be based on provable misdeeds and not a general association with the former regime”.

It stands to reason that after decades of corruption and dictatorship, that the Libyan people might want to exclude those they saw as part of the previous regime from power of any kind in the “new Libya”.

But as Fred Abrahams, a special adviser at the US-based international organization, Human Rights Watch, said in January, “bans on public office and senior positions should be based on provable misdeeds and not a general association with the former regime”.

The Libyan government planned to introduce what was known as a “political isolation law” in 2013. Many agreed with the need for the law although what it contained was the subject of some controversy. The law was eventually passed on May 5 this year but it was no easy process.

Armed militias had already surrounded various ministries demanding that certain individuals be removed from power because of past links to the former Libyan regime headed by Muammar Gaddafi. Then during the voting on the proposed legislation armed militias tried to influence voting by surrounding ministries and placing empty coffins in front of the halls of the General National Congress, or GNC, where the votes was being held. This was a threat made against anyone who voted against the legislation.   

Shortly before the vote Human Rights Watch recommended that the law be voted down, saying that: “the latest version of the draft law published on the congressional website indicates that it would cover anyone who held an official position from September 9, 1969, Gaddafi’s first day in power, until the declared end of the armed conflict that brought his downfall and death, October 23, 2011. The law would be valid for five years, while previous versions said the law would be valid for 10 years.”

And then two weeks after the law was passed, the National Forces Alliance, which has the most seats in Libya’s GNC, announced that the version of the law that MPs had actually voted on was different from a version that had been circulated as a document, previous to the voting.

At a press conference, National Forces Alliance MP, Tawfiq Shuhaibi, announced that there were more than 14 changes to the legislation, involving words and phrases deleted or replaced, some of which seriously changed the law’s intention and interpretation.

“The real wrong doing lies in the hidden hands that secretly changed, added or replaced articles and paragraphs of the law without informing other MPS,” another National Forces Alliance MP,  Ibrahim Ghiryani, said.

Ghiryani pointed out several examples. At one stage the law stipulates the “political exclusion” of anyone associated with the former government, listing bodies such as the Prime Ministry and the Revolution Command Council. The words “companies or councils” was added to this clause. “Anyone who held the position of a permanent representative of Libya at any international or regional organization” was added to the list of those who should be excluded as was “anyone who held the position of a chancellor or deputy chancellor at a university”.

Those who were hostile to the Libyan revolution “by action, incitement or financial support” were also supposed to be excluded from politics in the future. In this phrase, “financial support” was replaced by “collaboration or support” which obviously makes this category broader and eases the burden of proof.  

As a result of the changes in the legislation, the National Forces Alliance sent a memo to the head of the GNC saying that the amendments were selective and deliberate and that therefore they showed a “criminal intent”.

“This legal text was supposed to be inclusive, not subject to interpretation and drafted by law experts dedicated to the subject,” local human rights activist Omar Habasi, also of the High Commission for Integrity and Nationalism, which vets Libyans for links to the former regime, said. “The law was not supposed to be written by GNC members who may have had political affiliations that would affect the law’s drafting.”

The next step would normally be to re-examine the law, perhaps getting Libya’s highest court to overturn it. However even before the law was passed, the GNC had already resolved that it be protected from any legal challenges. “On April 9, Congress approved an amendment to Libya’s provisional constitution to exclude any possibility of judicial review of the political isolation law once Congress passes it,” Human Rights Watch reported. “That would eliminate the possibility that the Supreme Court could strike down the law.”

That amendment is shameful, Habasi says. “If the court was able to challenge this ruling, they would judge it unconstitutional,” he argued.