Libya’s parliament in Tobruk has been cancelling one session after another, mostly due to insufficient attendance, further delaying a desperately needed assembly to address the contentious UN-sponsored reconciliation government initiated by former special envoy Bernardino Leon.

Libya’s parliament in Tobruk has been cancelling one session after another, mostly due to insufficient attendance, further delaying a desperately needed assembly to address the contentious UN-sponsored reconciliation government initiated by former special envoy Bernardino Leon.

After the new special envoy Martin Copler took over this past October, he resolved to conclude the negotiations after a meeting with head of parliament Akila Saleh, in Shahat. The parliament was then anticipated to assemble on Monday December 7, but the session did not take place.

A number of meetings between the General National Congress and members of the parliament then produced a list of suggestions, most significant of which is  a return to the constitution of the monarchy, which is perceived as a new approach to resolving the current political turmoil. However, neither the Libyan Parliament nor the General National Congress has issued any official statement regarding these suggestions.

For more insight into the controversy, Correspondents spoke to MP Ibrahim Abdullah Al-Zghaid, representative of the Qaminis district, west of Benghazi. Al-Zaghid is one of the PMs who attended most of the parliamentary sessions, and also one of the MPs most opposed to the national reconciliation government and the current state of the political process.

MP Al-Zghaid, for more than a month, the Libyan parliament has failed to assemble, why?

It is true that the parliament has not yet assembled in a sufficiently attended session. In the past, insufficiently attended sessions used to be suspended, allowing the next session to be held legally regardless of the number of attendees. However, the head of the parliament ended the last held session directly after an unarmed citizen stormed into the parliament and verbally attacked the parliament members. Therefore, it was no longer legally possible to hold a parliamentary session with fewer than 95 attendees, a number that has not yet been reached. The reasons why members did not attend differ, some of them were in Egypt or Tunisia, while some were in Tobruk but did not turn up for unknown reasons.

Some accuse the parliament leadership of inconclusiveness and wasting time –  these accusations were mentioned in the Fezzan initiative signed by a number of parliament members. (The initiative was presented by members from the south and was signed by 90 parliament members, and it calls for the approval of the national reconciliation government if it includes two representatives from the southern and eastern parts of the country to the Prime Minister’s council)? How do you view this initiative?

We respect the parliament members who signed it, and if it had been signed by one of the thirty parliament members who represent the province of Fezzan we would have accepted it. However, the first name in the initiative’s signature list is the head of the National Forces Coalition in the parliament. Moreover, the internal charter of the parliament says that any program or project must be presented for parliamentary discussion, and this initiative has not been officially presented nor scheduled in the parliament’s program.

But Saleh Kalma, the member in charge of coordinating the parliamentary sessions, had signed the initiative.

Maybe he did sign it, but as a coordinator, he had not officially received the initiative to include it in the parliament’s schedule.

How do you view the meeting between parliament members and members of the National Congress in Tunisia?

I have always said that the National Congress as a legislative body had finished its term, and I am astonished to know that other parliament members who share my views have met Congress members in Tunisia.
From my view, these members do not represent the parliament, for they have not been assigned to meet Congress members, and remind my colleagues that according to the internal charter, steps taken by members without parliamentary assignment do not represent the parliament.

Even the head of the parliament, councilor Akila saleh, welcomed the meeting with the head of the National Congress Nuri Abu Sahmain.

Nuri Abu Sahmain is the one who legalized militias, and I view him as a terrorist. When my colleagues came back from Tunisia, they thought about arranging a meeting between Akila Saleh and Nuri Abu Sahmain first in Jadu and then they said in Sabha. I can guarantee the futility of such a meeting; it is like tilling seawater.
Moreover, what is said in the media is different from reality. Before Akila Saleh takes any decision, he must discuss it with the parliament, and a small number of members cannot make such a decision on their own.
Saleh may think about meeting Abu Sahmain in an attempt to stop the escalation of violence in Libya, but the issue has not yet been settled; at the end, he may or may not meet him.

What reservations do you have about the political agreement?

I have reservations about the way Leon confused the scene. At the beginning, the dialogue only concerned the boycotting parliament members, but the international envoy extended the dialogue to other political parties, independents, congress members, municipal representatives and religious and tribal leaders. Bernardino Leon obstructed dialogue in Libya for an entire year.

I support a dialogue that is committed to bringing us back to the fourth draft, which The General National Congress refused to sign.

An agreement is a contract between two parties and it must be applied. Parliament must be respected for two reasons. First, it is the elected legislative body. Second, in light of the security situation in Tripoli, we cannot foresee that the reconciliation government could bring the capital under control. Perhaps this fact is best proved by the abduction of our colleague Nabil Aoun. We have no information about him and no one claimed responsibility for the action, so how could we agree on managing the country from Tripoli under such conditions?

The citizens blame you parliament members for not passing one piece of legislation that is relevant to their everyday needs, like issuing salaries or providing goods, for example.

It is true, we have not proposed or passed any piece of legislation relevant to the basic needs of citizens, like food, medical supplies, housing or livelihood. But, ever since we took office, we have been in constant contact with the temporary government, which has the funds necessary to ease the pain of displaced people and others. However, the current situation does not enable us to pass any piece of legislation unless there is economic stability and security.

You have, however, passed legislation concerning the parliament members’ salaries and benefits, the last of which would be the housing and transportation compensation.

Our salaries and benefits already existed in legislation passed by the General National Congress, and most governments give themselves benefits, it is our right. We as parliament members have also suffered, some of us left our homes under bombardment and some of us were stranded in different places and lived as refugees instead of parliament members.