A Look into Reasons behind postponing elections in Libya
The Chairman of the Board of the High National Elections Commission, Imad al-Sayeh, revealed the reasons for declaring force majeure and postponing the holding of the general elections, which were scheduled for next December 24, saying that there were three factors behind this.
He explained that the first of those elements are “contradictory and irrefutable judicial rulings at the same time, which were issued during the appeals period, in addition to rulings outside the period set by the President’s Election Law, the latest of which is the judgment of the Misurata Court of Appeal,” according to his speech in the House of Representatives session on Monday.
He continued, “The Commission cannot go beyond judicial rulings within or outside the period specified by the law, and the second element is that these provisions have established legal centers, and the Commission has become obligated to deal with them.”
The most prominent reasons that prompted the postponement were the threats received by the commission, according to Al-Sayeh, who indicated that “there is an attempt to break into the commission’s headquarters in Tripoli,”
He added that messages they received were that if a final list of candidates was not issued in a certain way, the storming would take place, and no official position was issued from any party to support us.
In the same context, he expressed the commission’s doubts about the ability of the Ministry of Interior “to secure the electoral process in these circumstances.”
He stressed that the President’s Election Law set 48 hours to review the nomination papers only, adding that there were files that the commission expected to find fraud, and after: “If the law gave us some time, we would have kept about ten” or 12 applications.
He pointed out that in the last 48 hours before the nomination closed, the commission received 60 applications, while for two weeks it received only about 40 applications, and it had only two days to review, adding: “That period is not enough for an accurate review, but we had to be satisfied with that period that stipulated It is up to the law.”