Libya’s Attorney General Urged to Investigate Elections


A member of Libya’s Supreme Court, Counselor Jumaa Abu Zaid said that the Attorney General should investigate the statements made by the Head of Libya’s High National Elections Commission’s (HNEC), Emad Al-Sayeh claiming that a Presidential candidate has submitted forged documents.

Abu Zeid said that Al-Sayeh’s briefing to Libya’s Parliament on Monday “contained a logical account of the reasons why the elections failed to be held on time.”

Al-Sayeh said before the Parliament that the commission had received more than 5,400 candidacy bids for the Parliamentary elections, noting that some of them included falsified documents. He stressed that HNEC is technically ready to hold the country’s Presidential elections.

“The basis of the problem is defects in the drafting of the legislation, which are evident in the short periods specified for electoral procedures. As well as the short periods of appeals that were supposed to extend to weeks, and not to three days,” Abu Zeid explained.

He added, during a briefing before Libya’s Parliament that, “we referred several appeals to the Attorney General to prove to the Libyan people that the commission is committed to the principle of holding fair and transparent elections.”

Al-Sayeh’s statements came in response to accusations against the elections commission that it is a failed institution, and cannot fulfil its duty.

He also confirmed that the commission was communicating with the Interior Ministry, which had drawn up a well-prepared plan to secure the elections. This failed to materialise due to the deteriorating political and security situation on the ground.

Al-Sayeh claimed that one of the Presidential candidates had, “criticized the commission on a televised interview aired on a foreign channel, but we have evidence that he had forged his recommendation signatures.”

Libya failed to hold its much-awaited Presidential elections as scheduled on 24 December. The ballot was delayed to an unspecified date, after bitter arguments over divisive candidates and a disputed legal framework.