Agila Saleh Issa, Chairman of Libya’s internationally recognized parliament in Tobruk,  has recently become the focus of controversy since the EU blamed him for blocking the political process and has threated him with sanctions. In this interview with Correspondents, however, Saleh Issa however maintains his commitment to reconciliation and says he refuses to be intimidated by sanctions and that a political solution remains within the sovereignty of the Libyan state and its people.

Agila Saleh Issa, Chairman of Libya’s internationally recognized parliament in Tobruk,  has recently become the focus of controversy since the EU blamed him for blocking the political process and has threated him with sanctions. In this interview with Correspondents, however, Saleh Issa however maintains his commitment to reconciliation and says he refuses to be intimidated by sanctions and that a political solution remains within the sovereignty of the Libyan state and its people.

Chairman Saleh Issa, recently published reports reveal EU intentions to impose sanctions on you, among others, for obstructing the political process. Do you support or oppose the political agreement? And do you concur with being described as an obstructionist?

I am neither intimidated by sanctions nor am I affected by temptations. Due to my social and tribal status I support the agreement and I always seek reconciliation both within and outside the parliament, but is it just to cast me as an obstructionist if I disagree on some points?

The freedom to vote in the parliament is protected, since the members are representatives of the Libyan people and hence have the final say in the matter.

I am not a member of the dialogue committee. Therefore, I do not have the power to obstruct it. I am a member and president of the parliament, and I have attended its sessions throughout the recent months. I think the real obstructionists are the absent members, whose poorly justified absence blocks any decision about the government.

As for the sanctions imposed by some, they do not intimidate me. I do have neither bank accounts in nor outside Libya, hence these sanctions can only be a formal gesture. In addition, no one can be called an obstructionist to an agreement before it is implemented. Obstructionists try to halt the countries’  construction; however, parliament members and the president have the right to their opinions, and the government must merit their trust and conformation.

These accusations did not label me as an obstructionist of the entire reconciliation, rather they point to me out as standing against the latest governmental formula. They threaten to impose sanctions unless we confirm the government of Faiez Al-Sarraje as it is.

I support the agreement, only if it is implemented with respect to the constitutional declaration. The process of power transition needs amendment, especially that the parliament is preforming some governmental functions and these functions must be turned to the government. These issues among others must be addressed before confirming the government.

This sort of pressure mounts to a level of coercion (you either do as ordered or we sanction you). We refuse this policy and we have the right to our opinion. These sanctions are only just when they target obstructionist of an effective agreement – I believe they must be accompanied with by sanctions, but since the agreement is not yet effective, no one has the right to sanction.

Why did the parliament dissolve the previous dialogue committee?

Some parliament members had doubts about the committees’ performance, when some committee members were accused of trying to secure governmental assignments through the committee. At that point, we called for a meeting with the committee to view its reports, but many committee members did not attend and the committee reports were not well constructed. Moreover, the committee grossly went beyond its jurisdiction when it signed an agreement without consulting the parliament.

International envoy Martin Kobler stresses the necessity of validating the government, while you insist on doing so through the parliament. Does Kobler’s statement mean that the parliament has no choice but to confirm the government?

This is the equivalent of forcefully imposing the government on us, and here I exclaim; if we are bound to confirm the government, why does the government need the confirmation in the first place!? We are free to decide for ourselves and we will take the decision we see fit under the auspices of the parliament, for we are entrusted to do so by the Libyan people.

The notion of presenting a governmental formula to the parliament means that there will be supporters and opponents – this is the standard process all over the world. Parliaments have scheduled sessions and legal attendance rates and this frame work must be respected.

Member of Parliament Ibraheem Al-Darsi said that the parliament will confirm the government on conditions set by you. What are those conditions?

In order for the government to be legitimate, it has to be confirmed by the parliament, and any minister refused by 40 parliament members must be excluded from the governmental formula. Furthermore, the Presidential Council must come to the parliament to recognize both the parliament and the army, for we cannot entrust people who do not recognize both of these bodies.

I do have reservations about a presidential council that began addressing the international community before taking the constitutional oaths. In a worldwide precedent, the political agreement merged the position of President with the position of prime minister. Hence, the presidential council, which has nine members carries the power of both positions, and it was supposed to name a prime minister from outside its members.

Some Council members refused to attend the parliamentary session. Since the reconciliation is an imperative, the council must come and recognize both the parliament and the army. Recognizing the parliament and the army as legitimate institutions is an important issue regardless of personal sensitivities.

Some say that the agreement of MPs, whose numbers have reached one hundred, is sufficient to grant conformation, hence the government must begin preforming its duties. This notion was referred to indirectly in the last statement issued by the presidential council. The statement called on state institutions and the international community to work with the reconciliation government. How do you comment on the matter?

This notion is invalid. Even if all MPs are present, the government cannot begin working before legally taking the constitutional oath. However, after the oath, the government may begin working in a smooth and natural way.

It is  being said in the circles of the dialogue committee that the international envoy asked you to choose between Faiez Al-Sarraj and Ahmad Al-Abbar to head the reconciliation government and you chose Al-Sarrage. Did this actually happen?

This is not true and I do not know Faiez Al-Sarraj and I did not recognize him until I saw him on television. I first I thought he was a boycotting MP until I saw his picture. How would I name him if he were an unknown person to me?

No one was consulted when the president was named. However, I told everyone that I have no problem with any of the fourteen nominees as long as they are nominated by the parliament, and I also said that persons from our list can be nominated if they obtain a parliamentary majority.