The Libyan Parliament-designate government, led by Prime Minister Osama Hammad, has reaffirmed its commitment to the unity and independence of the judiciary, rejecting what it described as attempts to politicise judicial institutions amid ongoing political divisions.
In an official statement, the government responded to remarks issued by the Court of Cassation on December 31, 2025, as well as subsequent positions taken by the outgoing Government of National Unity. It stressed that Libya’s judiciary has remained largely unified and independent despite years of institutional fragmentation and political conflict.
The government said it values the role of the judiciary as a cornerstone of state stability and expressed hope that judicial bodies would continue to act as a barrier against any efforts to divide or exploit them for political purposes. However, it argued that the Court of Cassation’s statement went beyond its legal and constitutional mandate, prompting the need to clarify the government’s position to the public.
According to the statement, the House of Representatives remains Libya’s sole elected and constitutional legislative authority, exercising its powers under the Constitutional Declaration until a new legislative body is elected. The government maintained that the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation is an internal administrative body whose role is limited to organising court operations, rather than addressing public opinion or assessing the work of the legislature.
The government also objected to the court’s reference to the House of Representatives as a “temporary” legislative authority, describing this as an overreach into legislative jurisdiction. It argued that regulating judicial affairs through legislation does not undermine judicial independence but instead prevents institutional vacuum and ensures continuity during the transitional period.
In parallel, the Parliament-designate government criticised the outgoing administration’s statement on the issue, calling it degrading to national judicial sovereignty. It accused the former government of contradicting itself by invoking judicial independence while simultaneously calling for international intervention.
The statement concluded by reaffirming full adherence to constitutional legitimacy, respect for laws issued by the House of Representatives, and firm rejection of any attempt to involve the judiciary in political disputes or subject it to external influence.