Political analyst Hassan al-Saghir explained that the statements of Abdullah Burziza, President of the Supreme Court in Tripoli, have sparked widespread controversy after he described the court more than six times as a “constitutional institution,” despite it being a legal institution established and amended by law and not stipulated in the constitution.
In a post on his Facebook account, al-Saghir pointed to the contradiction in the position of Burziza and his party, who oppose the establishment of the Supreme Constitutional Court. They consistently argue that such a court is a constitutional institution whose establishment can only occur through a constitutional provision, which makes Burziza’s description of his current court as a “constitutional institution” questionable.
The political analyst noted that Burziza praised his predecessors in the presidency of the Supreme Court, even though at least two of them took positions abroad as a reward for promoting division and supporting militia factions and ideologues at the expense of the public interest.
He also pointed out that Burziza praised three or four academic figures merely for their participation in a conference that rejected the legitimacy of the Supreme Constitutional Court in Benghazi, explaining that all these individuals are originally from, reside, and work in Tripoli, which raises questions about the nature of their selection and how coincidental their presence in the same city is.
Al-Saghir stressed that these statements come at a sensitive time, amid an ongoing debate about the role of the Supreme Court and the divergent positions on establishing a Supreme Constitutional Court in Libya.