Ali Zuweid's Political Programme
Proposed legislation · State, Constitution, Justice, Rights and Governance
Administrative Procedure and Citizens' Rights in Dealings with Public Administration Bill
A general legislative framework translating the constitutional right to fair administrative treatment into practical rules: clear requirements, hearing and file-access rights, reasoned decisions, deadlines and administrative silence, review and appeal, and digital procedures inclusive of people unable to use them.
Executive Summary
The Bill starts from an express constitutional provision: Article (19/Sixth) of Iraq's Constitution grants everyone fair treatment in judicial and administrative procedures. Article (100) prohibits shielding administrative acts or decisions from challenge, while Article (101) permits organisation of a State Council exercising administrative justice, legal opinion, legislative drafting and state representation. Despite administrative courts and review and appeal rules under State Council and sectoral laws, citizens and businesses still face procedures dispersed across laws, instructions, service guides and internal practices varying between bodies.
The problem is not the absence of another oversight agency, but the need for a “general law of procedure” preceding litigation and making administrative decisions themselves fairer and more understandable. It guarantees prior knowledge of requirements, prohibits unpublished conditions and fees, requires receipts and reference numbers, timely comprehensive deficiency notices, no repeat demands for government-held data, and a traceable administrative file.
Prior hearings before adverse decisions, file access, impartiality, conflicts of interest, genuine reasons, valid notification and deadlines become general rules. Where no special law sets a deadline, the Bill proposes thirty days to determine a complete application, with one reasoned extension of no more than thirty days. Administrative silence does not automatically become approval potentially affecting public funds or third-party rights; it is deemed refusal solely to open review and appeal, while an express decision remains mandatory.
The Bill connects procedural reform to Iraq's existing digital transition, particularly Electronic Signature and Electronic Transactions Law No. (78) of 2012, its 2025 facilitating instructions and the Ur portal. It prevents digitalisation excluding those lacking skills, devices or connectivity and requires traceability, proof of timing, record integrity and human review of automated decisions with serious effects.
The Law creates neither a new independent authority nor parallel court and does not duplicate the State Council. Bodies fulfil duties through existing legal, administrative, quality and citizen-affairs structures; disputes and appeals remain within existing judicial jurisdiction. Special laws are preserved, but internal instructions and correspondence may not diminish fundamental procedural rights.
On 19 July 2026, the Council of Representatives announced that its Committee on Regions and Governorates Not Incorporated into a Region, Planning and the Government Programme had included a “Proposed Law on Fairness of Administrative Procedures and Measurement of Government Performance Efficiency” in its legislative work. The available official announcement establishes the proposal's existence but contains no articles. The sound legislative course is therefore to consolidate similar texts when the full parliamentary proposal becomes available, avoiding parallel laws on the same subject while limiting performance measurement to procedural quality rather than turning procedural-rights legislation into comprehensive government performance law.
Constitutional and Legal Context and Legislative Gap
1. Express Constitutional Basis
Iraq's Constitution provides a clearer foundation here than in many administrative reform areas. Article (14) establishes equality before law; Article (16), equal opportunity; Article (19/Third), access to justice; and Article (19/Sixth), expressly, fair treatment in judicial and administrative procedures. Article (100) prohibits immunity of administrative acts or decisions from challenge. Article (101) permits a State Council for administrative justice, legal opinion, legislative drafting and state representation.
Together, these provisions mean administrative justice begins before litigation: in receiving applications, establishing facts, hearing people, exercising discretion, giving reasons, notification and access to review. The Bill creates no new constitutional right; it regulates an existing right through common operational rules.
2. State Council and Administrative Judiciary
State Council Law No. (71) of 2017 was published in Iraqi Official Gazette Issue (4456) on 7 August 2017, establishing an independent State Council for administrative justice, legal opinion and drafting. Substantive and procedural rules continue under State Consultative Council Law No. (65) of 1979, as amended, with the State Council name substituted under the 2017 Law. Article (7) of the amended 1979 Law, according to published texts and decisions, specifies administrative challenge grounds, review and appeal deadlines and administrative judicial jurisdiction.
This structure provides judicial review but does not replace a general law governing the pre-decision stage throughout public administration. The Bill complements it by defining how administration should act before dispute while leaving judicial remedies and court jurisdiction to existing judicial laws.
3. Ongoing Procedural Reform and Digital Transition
Iraq's administration pursued official simplification during 2024–2026. The Ministry of Justice referred to a strategic service-simplification guide approved by Council of Ministers Decision No. (24009) of 2024. The Ministry of Planning continued simplification and digital-transition meetings and programmes in 2026, focusing on service automation, electronic signatures and inter-agency integration.
The Ur government portal already supports application registration and tracking of status and history. Electronic Signature and Electronic Transactions Law No. (78) of 2012 and facilitating Instructions No. (1) of 2025 provide a developing electronic-transaction legal basis. The Bill thus builds on existing technology, elevating good but uneven practices from initiatives to uniform legal rights.
4. Current Parliamentary Proposal
On 19 July 2026, Parliament officially announced inclusion of the “Proposed Law on Fairness of Administrative Procedures and Measurement of Government Performance Efficiency” among the competent committee's bills and proposals. The announcement contains no articles, so article-by-article consistency or conflict cannot be assessed. Its existence nevertheless requires consolidation of related initiatives into one bill when the full text is published, rather than competing administrative-justice frameworks.
The Bill distinguishes two fields: procedural fairness and the rights of the person concerned , the core of administrative procedure law, andgovernment performance measurement , a broader administrative field. It therefore includes only measures directly connected with procedural compliance, such as processing times, timely completion rates, review applications and amended decisions.
5. Gaps Addressed
- Different transaction requirements between bodies, including conditions sometimes arising from unpublished internal practice.
- Weak general rights to know case status and the responsible employee or unit.
- No uniform rule for one comprehensive deficiency notice or preventing repeat requests for government documents.
- No general prior-hearing and file-access rule before adverse decisions.
- Uneven standards of reasons and information about appeal routes.
- Dispersed deadlines and no general default period where special law is silent.
- Need to connect digital transition with clear procedural rights, beyond moving paper forms onto screens.
- Need to distinguish service complaints from legal review applications so citizens do not lose appeal deadlines.
Proposed legislative policy
The Bill adopts a general administrative procedure law rather than a new authority or consolidation of all sectoral legislation. Special laws retain distinctive procedures, while this Law provides a common baseline for daily practice.
| Issue | Chosen option | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Oversight Institution | No new authority or commission. | Existing bodies can fulfil obligations, while appeals remain with administrative and other competent courts. |
| Administrative Silence | Deemed refusal opening review, not general approval. | Silent approval may affect third-party rights, public funds or safety; sectoral laws may expressly adopt it where appropriate. |
| Completion Period | A default of 30 days absent a special provision, with one reasoned extension up to 30 days. | Prevents indefinitely open cases while preserving flexibility for technical files. |
| Digitalisation | Legal equivalence and digital tracking with assisted alternatives for individuals. | Digital transition reduces time and unnecessary contact; it is not a condition excluding those unable to use it. |
| Hearing and Reasons | General safeguards for adverse decisions, with limited exceptions. | They are central to preventive justice, reducing disputes and improving decisions. |
| Special Laws | Retain them while preventing subordinate instructions from diminishing safeguards. | Preserves sectoral distinctiveness and prevents internal practice from fragmenting rights. |
| Federalism | Constitutionally disciplined federal application respecting regional powers and decentralisation. | Avoids exceeding constitutional powers and allows regions to adopt equivalent or stronger protection. |
Complete Text of the Bill
In the name of the people
Presidency of the Republic
Pursuant to enactment by the Council of Representatives under paragraph (First) of Article (61) and paragraph (Third) of Article (73) of the Constitution of the Republic of Iraq, the President has resolved to promulgate the following Law:
Law No. ( ) of ( )
Administrative Procedure and Citizens' Rights in Dealings with Public Administration Law
Chapter One — General Provisions and Governing Principles
Article (1) — Name and General Scope
This Law shall be called the “Administrative Procedure and Citizens' Rights in Dealings with Public Administration Law”. It establishes general rules for preparing, making, notifying and reviewing individual administrative decisions and managing applications, transactions and procedural complaints within covered bodies.
Article (2) — Objectives
This Law aims to ensure fair administrative treatment; strengthen legality, impartiality, transparency and proportionality; define individuals' rights and administrative duties; simplify transactions; reduce costs, time and unnecessary contact; improve understandability, reviewability and appealability of decisions; and support safe digital administration.
Article (3) — Definitions
First — Administrative body: Any ministry, federal entity not attached to a ministry, federal authority, agency or public service, and local administration covered within constitutional competence and applicable laws.
Second — Administrative procedure: The sequence of actions initiated by an administrative body or on application to prepare a decision, public service or measure with direct legal effect.
Third — Administrative decision: An administrative body's binding expression, within its public authority, of a legal determination directly affecting a legal position.
Fourth — Person concerned: Any natural or legal person directly affected by a procedure or decision or possessing a legitimate legal interest in it.
Fifth — Administrative file: The paper or electronic record containing correspondence, applications, evidence, memoranda, procedural minutes and decisions concerning a specified transaction or procedure.
Sixth — Working day: A day on which the administrative body officially operates, excluding public holidays.
Seventh — Notification: Lawful delivery of a decision or measure to the person concerned through a method establishing date, content and sender and recipient identities.
Eighth — Procedural register: The public directory in which an administrative body publishes details of every transaction, service, licence or approval within its remit.
Article (4) — Scope
First — This Law applies to administrative actions of federal administrations, ministries, entities not attached to ministries and independent bodies, without affecting constitutional or judicial independence.
Second — It applies to governorates not incorporated into a region and their units when implementing federal laws or transferred or delegated federal powers, within constitutional and decentralisation-law limits.
Third — Regional powers to regulate administrative procedures under the Constitution remain preserved. Regions may adopt these safeguards as a minimum or legislate equivalent or stronger protection.
Article (5) — Excluded Procedures
Detailed procedural provisions do not apply to Parliament's legislative and oversight work, court and criminal-investigation procedures, military operations, or procedures comprehensively regulated by a special law due to their nature. Constitutional administrative fairness, access to justice, non-discrimination and reviewability principles remain applicable in every case.
Article (6) — Relations with Special Laws
First — This Law supplies general rules where no special provision exists.
Second — No regulation, instructions, order or administrative guide may diminish this Law's hearing, reasons, notification, file-access, review or appeal safeguards.
Third — A different procedure prescribed by special law for the subject's nature shall be interpreted and applied to preserve the essence of fair treatment, access to justice and constitutional safeguards.
Article (7) — Legality and Competence
Administrative bodies shall comply with the Constitution, law and applicable regulations and instructions. Measures affecting rights or legitimate interests shall be taken only by the competent authority, for the purpose for which power was granted, and within statutory limits and conditions.
Article (8) — Equality and Non-Discrimination
Comparable cases shall be treated alike and different cases according to objective differences. Direct or indirect unlawful discrimination is prohibited. Reasonable arrangements shall enable persons with disabilities, older people and those needing procedural assistance to exercise equal rights.
Article (9) — Proportionality and Least Restrictive Means
Any measure or requirement restricting rights or legitimate interests shall be necessary and suitable for a legitimate purpose and go no further than required. The least restrictive means sufficient to achieve the lawful purpose shall be adopted.
Article (10) — Impartiality, Good Faith and Legal Certainty
Administration shall act impartially, objectively and in good faith, respecting stable legal positions and legitimate expectations arising from clear, reliable official conduct. Established practice or interpretation shall not change abruptly to a person's detriment without legal authority, published reasons and suitable transitional arrangements where needed.
Chapter Two — Rights of the Person Concerned and Procedural Transparency
Article (11) — Right to Fair Administrative Treatment
Everyone is entitled to impartial, fair handling within a reasonable time; knowledge of applicable rules; a hearing before an adverse decision where it can matter; reasons where legally required; and access to review, administrative challenge and judicial appeal.
Article (12) — Right to Know the Competent Body and Applicable Rules
The body shall clearly and accessibly identify the responsible unit, legal basis, conditions, documents, fees, duration and submission methods, enquiry and appeal routes, and any security, safety or public-interest requirements affecting the application.
Article (13) — Public Procedural Register
First — Every body shall maintain a public paper or electronic procedural register and publish an updated version on its official website and the unified government portal where its service is available.
Second — For every procedure or service, the register shall specify name, legal basis, competent body, beneficiaries, documents, fees or charges, completion time, submission channels, common legally grounded refusal reasons, and review and appeal routes.
Third — Every amendment shall be dated. A stricter new condition shall not apply to a pending case unless law requires immediate application or an essential public interest necessitates it, with reasons given.
Article (14) — Prohibition of Unpublished Requirements and Fees
No document, confirmation, step, fee or service charge may be required without authority in applicable law, regulations or instructions and publication in the procedural register. Administrative custom or unpublished internal correspondence is insufficient to impose a new public requirement.
Article (15) — Assistance and Guidance
Staff shall give impartial procedural guidance on completion, documents, timeframes and remedies, without providing legal representation or promising an outcome. Suitable assistance shall support those unable to use digital methods.
Article (16) — Representation and Support
A person may appoint a representative or use a companion, interpreter or support person under applicable law. Personal attendance may be required only for necessary identity verification or an inherently personal step based on legislation or an objective reason.
Article (17) — Language and Communication
Communications shall respect the Constitution, Official Languages Law and related legislation. According to the service and legal and organisational capacity, understandable official-language forms and guidance and reasonable translation or alternative communication arrangements shall be provided.
Article (18) — Choice of Submission Channel
Applications, memoranda and objections may be submitted on paper or electronically where legally available. Natural persons shall not be confined to electronic channels except by legislation or where effective assisted alternatives prevent exclusion due to age, disability, digital poverty or system failure.
Article (19) — Receipt and Reference Number
Immediately upon receipt, a paper or electronic acknowledgement shall record date, time, reference number, receiving body and brief attachment description. That date governs deadlines unless manipulation or material error is established.
Article (20) — Case Tracking
At reasonable times, the person may learn the case's status, stage, current holder and whether action from them is awaited. Electronic systems shall provide a basic status timeline without revealing protected third-party data.
Article (21) — Protection against Administrative Retaliation
Adverse action, delay, reordering or denial of service because of a complaint, administrative challenge, judicial appeal, file-access request or exercise of a statutory procedural right is prohibited.
Article (22) — Privacy and File Confidentiality
Data collection shall be necessary and proportionate. Files shall remain confidential and information shall not be reused without a legal basis, without prejudice to the person's file-access right or lawful oversight and judicial access.
Chapter Three — Commencement, Applications and the Administrative File
Article (23) — Commencement
A procedure begins upon application or the body's initiative where authorised. The file shall record commencement date, reason, legal basis and responsible employee or unit.
Article (24) — Application to the Wrong Body
First — A body receiving an application within another known public body's remit shall forward it within three working days and notify the applicant. Where the mistake was reasonable, the original submission date remains for this Law's deadlines.
Second — If the competent body cannot be identified, the applicant shall be directed towards the closest appropriate route rather than simply rejected without explanation.
Article (25) — Completeness Check
Within seven working days, the body shall check published requirements. A complete application shall be recorded as such, with the decision period running from receipt unless special law provides otherwise.
Article (26) — Single Deficiency Notice
First — An incomplete application shall receive one comprehensive notice of deficiencies identifiable at that time, explaining each requirement's basis and a reasonable correction period of at least fifteen days unless a special provision requires less due to the procedure's nature.
Second — Successive deficiency requests are prohibited unless a new requirement arises from a later document or a fact not discoverable at the first check.
Article (27) — Effect of Completing Deficiencies
Timely correction shall continue the process without resubmission. Otherwise, the application may be closed or procedurally refused by a reasoned decision identifying the deficiency, consequences and remedy, unless the defect is non-substantive and correctable from official records.
Article (28) — Once-Only Data Principle
Documents or information issued by another public body shall not be requested where legally accessible through institutional links or reliable government registers, subject to privacy, confidentiality and security. If access is technically or legally unavailable, they may be requested with an explanation of need.
Article (29) — Originals, Copies and Certifications
Personal-document originals shall not be retained, nor repeated certification demanded, unless law requires it or specific serious doubt concerns authenticity. Verified electronic copies or extracts shall be accepted where lawful.
Article (30) — Complete Administrative File
Every procedure shall have an integrated file of applications, attachments, correspondence, referrals, minutes, evidence, staff notes affecting the decision, technical opinions, final decision and notification proof, tracing the decision's course, maker and factual basis.
Article (31) — Timeline Integrity
All substantive actions shall be dated. Significant documents shall not be erased, substituted or added without an audit trail identifying who changed them, when and why. Instructions shall set retention periods consistent with archiving, document protection and rights laws.
Article (32) — Duty to Establish Facts
The body is responsible for collecting facts needed for a lawful decision, requesting relevant evidence, verifying official records and obtaining technical expertise. The person shall not bear the burden of proving facts exclusively held by administration or verifiable through its ordinary means.
Article (33) — Evidence and Observations
Relevant documents, data and arguments may be submitted until deliberations close. Irrelevant material may be excluded, with reasons recorded where it might affect the outcome.
Article (34) — Public-Body Cooperation
Public bodies shall exchange necessary information and confirmations within lawful competence. Requests shall specify purpose, data and response time. Waiting for another body shall not suspend deadlines without informing the person of reasons and expected duration within statutory limits.
Chapter Four — Participation, Hearing, Access and Impartiality
Article (35) — Interested-Party Status
A person concerned includes anyone seeking a right, licence or service, addressed by the decision, or whose right or legal interest may be directly affected. Others whose rights may be materially affected may be joined where hearing them is necessary for a sound decision.
Article (36) — Notice of Administration-Initiated Proceedings
A body initiating proceedings potentially adverse to an individual or legal person shall notify them of the procedure, material facts, competent authority, right to observations and response period, unless a lawful exception requires urgency or temporary secrecy.
Article (37) — Hearing before an Adverse Decision
No individual decision withdrawing a right, refusing renewal of an existing status, or imposing an obligation, administrative penalty or adverse measure on disputed facts shall issue before a genuine opportunity to understand and answer the essential reasons. At least ten working days shall be allowed unless law prescribes otherwise or urgency reasonably requires less.
Article (38) — Exceptions to Prior Hearing
Hearing may be deferred where immediate action is necessary against imminent danger to life, health or security, to prevent loss of evidence or public funds, to perform an urgent legal duty, or where hearing would defeat the measure's lawful purpose. Reasons shall be recorded and review and hearing offered as soon as possible afterwards.
Article (39) — File Access
The person or representative may inspect and obtain copies of documents, evidence and technical opinions relied upon or potentially relied upon, at reasonable actual cost or electronically without an additional non-statutory fee.
Article (40) — Access Limits and Partial Redaction
First — Information may be withheld to protect a statutory secret, third-party privacy, legitimate commercial secrecy, national security or an ongoing investigation where disclosure would cause specific harm outweighing the access interest.
Second — Withholding shall be limited to what is necessary, with the remainder disclosed after redaction where possible.
Third — Refusal shall state reasons, the withheld information category, legal basis and challenge route without revealing the secret itself.
Article (41) — No Wholly Secret Basis for Decisions
An adverse decision shall not rely wholly on information whose substance is unknown and impossible to answer, unless law prohibits disclosure for a substantial reason. A sufficient summary of facts and grounds shall then enable defence without harming the protected interest, preserving lawful judicial access.
Article (42) — Expertise and Technical Examination
An expert's or technical committee's mandate and scope shall be recorded, and its opinion filed. Before decision, the person may comment on a material opinion containing new adverse facts or conclusions unless the procedure's nature or law requires otherwise.
Article (43) — Impartiality, Conflicts and Recusal
Staff or committee members shall not help prepare decisions where they, a spouse or relatives within statutory degrees have a direct personal interest, or a relationship or serious dispute creates objective doubt about impartiality. Recusal and substitution shall be recorded, without prejudice to other integrity rules.
Article (44) — Administrative Inspection
Inspection requires a competent official, legal authority and defined purpose. Officials shall identify themselves and their capacity where possible and record place, time, facts, seized materials and photographs, respecting proportionality, home inviolability, privacy and required judicial authorisation.
Article (45) — Records and Hearings
Substantive hearings and procedural interviews shall be minuted, recording attendance, requests, arguments, documents and outcome. Audio or video recording requires legal permission and notice. The person may seek correction of a clerical error or record an objection to the content.
Article (46) — Participation in Broadly Affecting General Decisions
Where a proposed regulation or implementing rule broadly affects public rights or compliance costs and the subject permits, the body shall publish a draft or adequate summary and legal basis, allow suitable comment time, and publish key considerations informing its decision. Special statutory processes or justified urgency may provide exceptions.
Chapter Five — Administrative Decisions, Reasons, Deadlines and Silence
Article (47) — Interim Measures
Interim measures may prevent serious harm, protect evidence or public funds, or maintain essential services. They shall be reasoned, limited in duration and scope, not become final penalties before safeguards are completed, and remain reviewable when grounds cease or facts change.
Article (48) — Express Decision Duty
The body shall expressly determine applications and procedures within its remit. Expiry of time or legal effects of silence do not remove the duty to decide, give reasons and notify where a decision still has a subject matter.
Article (49) — Competence and Delegation
Decisions shall be issued by the competent authority or lawful delegate. Delegated decisions shall identify capacity and delegation basis sufficiently to verify competence. Delegation shall neither be presumed nor expansively interpreted.
Article (50) — Decision Form and Record
Individual decisions affecting rights or obligations shall be written or electronically recorded in a retrievable register, identifying the body, date, number, issuing person's name or capacity and authenticity-verification method. Urgent oral decisions shall be documented without delay if effects continue or the person requests it.
Article (51) — Decision Contents
As appropriate, the decision shall identify the person, material facts, legal basis, result or obligation, effective date, conditions or duration, implementation method, competent review or appeal authority and deadline.
Article (52) — Duty to Give Reasons
Reasons are required for whole or partial refusals; restrictions on rights or legitimate interests; withdrawal or revocation of existing benefits or licences; penalties or measures; review decisions; departures from settled practice or a material technical opinion; or broad discretionary decisions.
Article (53) — Adequate Reasons
Reasons shall identify established facts, principal evidence, applicable provisions, their application, and acceptance or rejection of substantive arguments. Formulae such as “public interest” or “not satisfied”, or references to unavailable internal correspondence, are insufficient without explaining the connection between grounds and outcome.
Article (54) — Discretion
Discretionary decisions shall identify the power's legal purpose and relevant considerations, excluding extraneous or personal factors and respecting proportionality, equality and justified consistency with comparable cases.
Article (55) — Consistency and Departure from Practice
Administrative practice creates no unlawful right. Departure from a published, settled interpretation or criterion shall nevertheless be reasoned and announced and shall not retrospectively harm good-faith legal positions unless law requires otherwise.
Article (56) — Prohibition of Secret Criteria
Applications shall not be refused, downgraded, scored or preferred on substantive criteria unpublished or unavailable before submission closes, except statutory confidential security criteria to the necessary extent with an appropriate review mechanism.
Article (57) — Notification
Notification shall establish dispatch and receipt or lawful availability dates. The served copy shall be complete, clear and legible and include review and appeal details. Where notification fails for reasons not attributable to administration, statutory alternative methods apply.
Article (58) — General Decision Period
First — Absent a special statutory deadline, a complete application shall be determined within thirty days of completion.
Second — One extension of no more than thirty days may be made for technical expertise, investigation or multi-agency coordination. Before the original deadline, the person shall be notified of reasons and the final date.
Third — Extensions shall not become routine for a transaction category without amending the procedural register and a regulatory basis justifying the longer period.
Article (59) — Calculating and Suspending Time
Time runs from the day after the triggering event. A final day falling on a public holiday extends to the next working day. Completion time may be suspended only for a prescribed reason or a step the body cannot lawfully perform itself; the person shall be notified of the start, reason and end.
Article (60) — Administrative Silence
First — Silence constitutes approval only where a special law expressly prescribes its conditions and effects.
Second — Expiry without decision constitutes deemed refusal solely to open review and appeal. It does not extinguish the express-decision duty or presume the administration's substantive position correct.
Third — Silent approval shall not apply where third-party rights, public funds, health, safety, environment or security may be affected unless special law supplies sufficient safeguards.
Chapter Six — Withdrawal, Review, Administrative Challenge and Judicial Appeal
Article (61) — Clerical Corrections
On its initiative or application, the body may correct purely clerical, arithmetic or material errors at any time without changing substance or adding new reasons. Corrections affecting understanding or implementation shall be notified to recipients of the original decision.
Article (62) — Administrative Reconsideration
Reconsideration is permitted upon a decisive previously unknown fact, a material factual or legal error, or a binding judgment changing the legal basis. It shall not circumvent appeal periods or unlawfully harm good-faith settled rights.
Article (63) — Withdrawal of Unlawful Adverse Decisions
An unlawful decision imposing an obligation, refusing a right or causing harm may be withdrawn or revoked while effects continue, respecting good-faith third-party rights and lawful compensation entitlements.
Article (64) — Withdrawal of Rights-Creating Decisions
First — An individual decision creating a right or legal status for a good-faith beneficiary may be withdrawn only if unlawful, within its statutory judicial-challenge period and after hearing the beneficiary, unless special law protects stability more strongly.
Second — The time limit does not protect decisions obtained by fraud, forgery or deliberate concealment of a material fact, or legally non-existent decisions with a fundamental defect, subject to limitation, general rules and good-faith third-party rights.
Article (65) — Prospective Revocation of Lawful Decisions
A lawful rights-creating decision may be prospectively revoked only where law permits, a condition is subsequently breached, or a statutorily specified essential public interest requires it. Financial effects, legally due compensation and good-faith legitimate expectations shall be considered.
Article (66) — Procedural Defects and Cure
An immaterial formal defect shall not invalidate a procedure where its legal purpose was achieved and defence or outcome unaffected. Genuine cure is permitted before finality. This cannot cure fundamental lack of competence, absence of grounds, constitutional violation or denial of a safeguard capable of changing the result.
Article (67) — Administrative Challenge
First — The person may seek administrative review from the issuing body or competent superior under law.
Second — Where State Council or special law requires prior administrative challenge before litigation, a timely application under this Law containing essential information satisfies that requirement.
Third — Instructions or internal correspondence may not create mandatory review absent from legislation.
Article (68) — Review Application and Determination
The application need only identify the decision or measure, applicant, objection grounds and requested remedy. The body shall examine the complete file and may uphold, amend, withdraw or remit the decision for a substantive procedural step. It shall decide within the special-law period or, absent one, thirty days, giving reasons and notification.
Article (69) — Stay of Execution
Administrative challenge does not stay execution unless law, the body or competent court so determines. A temporary stay may be granted where the challenge appears serious, execution risks irreparable harm and no overriding public interest or third-party rights would be harmed.
Article (70) — Judicial Appeal
No provision or implementing instruction shall shield an administrative act or decision from judicial challenge. The powers of the State Council, Administrative Court, Employees' Court, Supreme Administrative Court and other statutory appeal bodies remain effective.
Article (71) — Compensation and Liability
The right to claim compensation for harm from unlawful administrative acts or decisions under existing rules and jurisdiction remains preserved. Employees are not exempt from disciplinary, civil or criminal responsibility where statutory conditions exist.
Chapter Seven — Digital Procedures and Automated Decisions
Article (72) — Legal Equivalence of Paper and Electronic Forms
Electronic applications, records, signatures, notifications and transactions carry the evidential force and effects prescribed by applicable legislation. A document shall not be refused solely because electronic where validity, authenticity and legal integrity conditions are met.
Article (73) — Electronic Service Requirements
As appropriate, electronic services shall support identity verification, receipts, reference numbers, attachment retention, status tracking, timestamps, deficiency and decision notices, downloadable application and decision copies, and audit trails for substantive changes.
Article (74) — Digital Inclusion
Digitalisation shall not deprive a person of rights or services because they lack devices, skills, payment methods or adequate connectivity. In-person, telephone or service-centre assistance shall be provided unless a group is lawfully required to use electronic channels for objective reasons.
Article (75) — Signature and Identity Verification
Electronic signatures, identity verification and trust services shall follow the Electronic Signature and Electronic Transactions Law and applicable legislation and instructions. Verification shall not exceed the service's risks or legal significance.
Article (76) — Electronic Notification
Electronic notification is valid where law permits and the person selects a reliable channel or is legally required to use it, with proof of dispatch and availability or receipt. Instructions shall govern failed access, repeat notification and contact-data changes.
Article (77) — Interoperability and Data Reuse
Within lawful powers, bodies shall exchange necessary confirmations and data through secure government channels instead of making the public carry correspondence between offices. Access shall be logged and purpose, confidentiality, security and privacy limits respected.
Article (78) — Automated Decisions
First — Where automation ranks, verifies or recommends on applications or makes decisions, legal rules and substantive criteria shall be auditable and recorded in the file insofar as compatible with legitimate secrecy and system security.
Second — Individual decisions with serious adverse legal effects shall not rely solely on automated processing unless law permits and provides an effective right to human review of facts and outcome.
Third — Where material, the person shall be informed of automation's substantial contribution and how to request review.
Article (79) — System Outages and Deadlines
A government-system outage preventing applications, review requests or administrative appeals shall be announced, and deadlines extended by the outage duration where otherwise missed. Bodies shall maintain continuity plans and alternative channels for urgent procedures.
Chapter Eight — Compliance, Accountability and Service Quality
Article (80) — Internal Compliance Responsibility
Every body shall assign an existing legal, quality or citizen-affairs unit or staff team to monitor compliance, update the procedural register and analyse delay and procedural complaints. This Law thereby creates no independent authority or new posts.
Article (81) — Procedural Compliance Indicators
Bodies shall annually publish, without personal or security disclosures, timely completion rates, average or median processing time by service, returns for deficiencies, administrative review numbers and outcomes, proportions of administratively or judicially annulled or amended decisions where data exist, and principal simplification measures.
Article (82) — Service Complaints
A separate channel shall handle poor service, delay, conduct and accessibility complaints. Service complaints do not replace legal review or suspend its deadlines; forms and portals shall clearly distinguish them.
Article (83) — Procedural Employment Violations
Depending on seriousness and repetition, disciplinary violations include unjustified refusal to register complete applications; concealing files or altering dates or contents; unlawful document or fee demands; deliberate delay; neglecting binding judicial or administrative decisions; retaliation against complainants; and decisions involving undisclosed conflicts of interest. Existing discipline and service laws govern accountability.
Article (84) — No Criminalisation of Mere Administrative Error
This Law creates no crime solely for procedural mistakes or unintentional delay. Existing offences remain applicable where conduct involves forgery, bribery, deliberate document destruction, criminal abuse of authority or other criminal elements.
Article (85) — Training and Standard Forms
Bodies shall periodically train public-facing staff and use clear, concise forms where possible. The Council of Ministers may adopt common advisory templates for receipts, deficiency notices, refusals, review applications and extensions.
Article (86) — Consolidated Government Report
Through a designated existing formation, the Council of Ministers may compile annual federal service and procedure indicators, identify high-delay or repetitive-document services, and prioritise simplification and digital links without interfering in judicial or independent-body autonomy or individual appeal outcomes.
Chapter Nine — Transitional and Final Provisions
Article (87) — Implementing Instructions
Within one hundred and eighty days of publication, the Council of Ministers shall issue implementing regulations or instructions for the federal executive administration. Independent bodies shall issue what their powers and independence require. No instruction may restrict or except a statutory right without legislative authority.
Article (88) — Procedural Inventory and Publication
Covered bodies shall inventory and register services and procedures within one hundred and eighty days of commencement. Within two hundred and seventy days, they shall review requirements lacking an applicable provision or duplicating lawfully exchangeable government documents and revoke or amend those within their powers.
Article (89) — Electronic-System Alignment
Within twelve months of commencement, bodies shall adapt electronic systems and forms for receipts, tracking, deadline evidence, notices, downloadable copies and audit trails, according to priorities and capacity while maintaining service continuity.
Article (90) — Legislative Review
Within one year, the Council of Ministers, State Council and relevant bodies shall list laws requiring alignment of deadlines, electronic notification, review, hearing and reasons, and provisions potentially understood as unconstitutional immunity from appeal, referring amendment bills through constitutional channels.
Article (91) — Pending Procedures
This Law applies to procedures beginning after commencement. Hearing, reasons, notification and file-access safeguards also apply to pending matters lacking a final decision where possible without invalidating lawful steps or harming acquired third-party rights.
Article (92) — Financial Effects
Existing structures shall implement duties wherever possible. Essential archiving, digitalisation, accessibility, training and institutional-link needs shall enter annual budgets by priority. Lack of an electronic system shall not suspend a fundamental procedural right deliverable on paper or otherwise.
Article (93) — Publication and Commencement
This Law shall be published in the Official Gazette and take effect ninety days afterwards, except transitional periods counted from commencement.
Statement of reasons
To implement constitutional equality, access to justice and fair administrative treatment; prevent arbitrariness, opacity and unjustified delay in dealings with the public; unify minimum application, hearing, access, reasons, notification, review and appeal safeguards; simplify transactions and prevent unpublished requirements and duplicate documents; align paper and electronic procedures with digital transition and signatures; and improve decision quality, legal certainty and trust while preserving State Council and administrative judicial powers and avoiding parallel agencies, this Law is enacted.
General Explanatory Memorandum
1. From Subsequent Review to Preventive Justice
Administrative courts provide essential post-decision remedies, but disputes' costs to individuals and the state make procedural prevention more efficient. Prior knowledge, receipts, file access, opportunities to respond and explanatory decisions reduce error and misunderstanding and clarify real disputes. The Law's core function is to improve decisions before litigation, not replace courts.
2. Hearing Is More than Formality
The hearing provisions demand a genuine opportunity to answer material facts, rather than a formality easily bypassed. Urgent danger or risk of defeating a measure's purpose allows exceptions, but reasons must be recorded and swift subsequent review offered. This broadly follows modern comparative administrative-procedure approaches adapted to Iraq.
3. Reasons as Legality and Accountability Tools
Giving reasons does not require pages for every transaction. The person should understand acceptance or refusal, relied-upon facts and provisions, and use of discretion. Mandatory reasons therefore focus on adverse, review and discretionary decisions and departures from settled practice, excluding generalities that prevent real scrutiny.
4. The Procedural Register and “Invisible Requirements”
The Procedural Register targets one of the most common sources of administrative friction: an undisclosed document, certification or step appearing after a transaction has begun. Requiring every body to publish the legal basis, documents, fees, time limit and submission channels gives citizens a reference they can invoke and enables the administration itself to identify repetitive or unsupported requirements.
5. A Single Notice of Missing Requirements
The Law does not prohibit requesting a new document where a genuinely new fact emerges, but prevents known deficiencies from being divided into a succession of visits. This arrangement is legislatively simple yet directly reduces visits and time, compelling the competent unit to examine the application early instead of discovering deficiencies sequentially.
6. The Rule: “Do Not Ask Citizens for What the State Already Holds”
The bill adopts this rule subject to two conditions: access to the data must be lawful, and the connection must be available and secure. Simplification must not be used as a pretext for unlawful data exchange; equally, the administration must not continue requiring people to carry letters and certifications between two bodies legally and technically able to verify the information directly. The text allows a transitional period because interoperability is not equally available across all bodies.
7. The General Time Limit and Administrative Silence
Procedures differ too greatly to impose a single time limit on everything. The bill therefore provides a default period only where there is no special provision: thirty days for a complete application, with one reasoned extension. Where sectoral legislation prescribes five or ninety days, that special period applies. A cautious model is adopted for silence: the route to review opens, but no general implied approval arises. In low-risk sectors, the legislature may expressly provide that silence constitutes consent, subject to its conditions, as some comparative systems do.
8. Stability of Decisions and Legitimate Expectations
The bill balances legality against the stability of legal positions. The administration may correct an unlawful adverse decision in favour of the affected person, whereas a decision creating a right for a person acting in good faith should not remain indefinitely exposed to withdrawal. Accordingly, the text generally ties its withdrawal to the period during which judicial challenge is available, with exceptions for fraud, forgery, deliberate concealment and legally non-existent decisions. This does not prevent special laws from providing greater protection where the nature of the right requires it.
9. A Service Complaint Is Not a Legal Administrative Challenge
A citizen may complain to a citizens' affairs unit believing that this has suspended the appeal deadline, only to lose the right to judicial recourse. The bill addresses this by requiring bodies to distinguish clearly between the service-complaint channel and the legal administrative-review channel. Conversely, a duly submitted administrative challenge within the prescribed period should not be dismissed merely because the person used an electronic portal or a different form.
10. Digital Transformation with Legal Safeguards
The bill does not create a particular technical system or tie the Law to a platform that may change. Instead, it specifies features that any system must provide: a receipt, reference number, timestamp, tracking, retention of attachments, notifications, a downloadable copy and an audit trail. The Ur portal and current or future ministry systems can thus develop without requiring an amendment to the Law whenever technology changes.
11. Automated Decisions and Human Review
Automation can reduce arbitrary discretion and accelerate verification, but becomes problematic if it produces a refusal or deprivation with serious consequences without any means of understanding the reason or correcting the data. The bill therefore does not prohibit automation, but requires genuine human review where a seriously adverse decision is based exclusively on automated processing, unless legislation regulates the case with special safeguards.
12. No New Body
The bill opts for compliance within the existing structure. Legal, quality or citizens' affairs departments can undertake follow-up, while the Council of Ministers can consolidate executive-administration indicators through an existing unit. Examination of the legality of decisions and resolution of disputes remain with the administrative judiciary and judicial authorities under applicable laws. This reduces costs and prevents institutional expansion.
13. Federal Limits
The bill respects the federal structure of the State and does not assume unlimited federal legislative authority over every local or regional administrative detail. It therefore applies directly to the federal administration and to governorates not incorporated into a region insofar as they implement federal laws and competences under the constitutional system, while leaving regions free to adopt similar legislation or broader safeguards. This wording reduces the risk of conflict with the distribution of powers while allowing a national standard of procedural fairness to develop.
14. Access to the File and the General Right to Information
The person concerned has a procedural right to inspect their file, connected with defending their legal position and examining the facts on which the administration will base its decision. This differs from the general right of access to government information, which merits separate legislation addressing the persons and information covered, exceptions and the body competent to hear challenges. This bill therefore regulates the transaction file to the extent necessary for procedural fairness and does not replace legislation on the right of access to information.
Alignment with Existing Legislation
The bill does not propose blanket repeal of sectoral procedural legislation. The intention is to establish this Law as a general layer, followed by alignment of provisions that impede its application or use paper-based concepts incompatible with electronic transactions. Alignment should proceed through specific amendments following an official legislative inventory, rather than a general clause implicitly repealing an unknown number of laws.
| Legislation or field | Relevant position | Proposed remedy |
|---|---|---|
| Constitution of the Republic of Iraq 2005 | Article 19/Sixth on fair treatment, Article 100 prohibiting immunity from challenge, and Article 101 on the State Council. | Provides the governing foundation; implementing instructions may not diminish it. |
| State Council Law No. 71 of 2017 and Law No. 65 of 1979, as amended | Regulate the State Council, administrative justice, administrative review and challenges to decisions. | No change in judicial jurisdiction; terminology, electronic administrative review and effects on time limits should be coordinated where necessary. |
| State and Public Sector Employees Discipline Law No. 14 of 1991, as amended | Contains disciplinary procedures and administrative and judicial review provisions concerning employees. | Its special provisions remain applicable; procedures benefit from the principles of hearing, reason-giving and impartiality where there is no conflict. |
| Electronic Signature and Electronic Transactions Law No. 78 of 2012 and Instructions No. 1 of 2025 | The basis for evidential validity and electronic dealings. | The bill operates alongside them without re-regulating signatures and trust services; instead, it specifies users' rights in electronic procedures. |
| Official Languages Law No. 7 of 2014 | Regulates the use of official languages and associated rights. | Is referenced for correspondence, forms and public services; no parallel language regime is introduced. |
| Sectoral laws on licensing, taxation, customs, enforcement, pensions and other matters | Contain differing special time limits, objection routes and procedures. | To be inventoried within one year; amended only where a genuine conflict with safeguards exists or electronic evidence needs to be accommodated. |
| Provisions barring challenges or immunising administrative decisions | May appear in older legislation; courts and legal scholarship have raised their incompatibility with Article 100. | Identify them and refer express amendments to remove immunity, rather than leaving the contradiction to isolated constitutional cases. |
Transitional Provisions and Implementation Requirements
The bill allows administrations a period before full commencement, then divides the transition into stages specified in the Law itself: inventorying and publishing procedures within 180 days, reviewing repetitive or unsupported requirements within 270 days, and aligning electronic systems within 12 months. This sequence seeks to secure fundamental rights as soon as implementation is possible while allowing time for work requiring database cleansing, systems integration or revised forms.
Implementation should begin with the services involving the greatest public interaction and the highest volumes or longest delays, but the order of executive services need not be fixed in the Law. Published indicators need only reveal where delays and returned applications occur, enabling simplification decisions to rely on operational data rather than impressions alone.
Financial and Implementation Implications
The bill creates neither a new authority nor new staff posts by operation of law, so there is no separate institutional establishment cost for which a fixed figure could be justified. Costs are concentrated in four areas: updating forms and manuals, training staff, enabling access for persons with disabilities and those unable to use digital channels, and adapting electronic systems for connectivity, tracking and audit trails.
A substantial part of these requirements already falls within ongoing procedural-simplification and digital-transformation programmes and can be implemented using existing resources and units. Technical integration, large-scale archiving or infrastructure upgrades should be budgeted by each body following an inventory of its current systems. The bill therefore avoids a single national figure that would imply false precision.
When preparing the government bill accompanying the budget, each body should provide an estimate based on the number of services, transaction volumes, proportion of digital services, integration needs, accessibility requirements and training costs, distinguishing one-off expenditure from annual operating expenditure. Savings should meanwhile be measured through reduced paper-based visits, fewer resubmitted transactions, shorter interagency correspondence and fewer disputes caused by preventable procedural errors.
Comparative and International References
The bill does not copy the model of any single country. Comparative analysis was used to identify established safeguards that can be adapted to the Iraqi Constitution:
- European Union: Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights combines impartiality, fairness and a reasonable time, a hearing before an adverse individual measure, access to the file and the duty to give reasons.
- Germany: The Federal Administrative Procedure Act provides in Section 28 for a hearing before a decision affecting rights, in Section 29 for access to the file, and in Section 39 for reasons for written or electronic decisions and an explanation of the grounds for exercising discretion.
- Spain: Law 39/2015 regulates common administrative procedure, establishing a person's rights to know the status of proceedings and the competent body and to access documents, and requiring reasons for broad categories of decisions and information on avenues of appeal.
- France: The Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration brings together rules on implied decisions, reason-giving and procedural relations. It demonstrates that the principle that silence constitutes consent requires an extensive network of exceptions, supporting the decision not to copy it as a general rule in Iraq before a precise register of suitable sectors is established.
- International standards: Iraq's participation in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention against Corruption reinforces the importance of fairness, effectiveness, transparency and accountability in administration, while the direct foundation of this Law remains the Iraqi Constitution.
Sources and references
First — The Iraqi Constitution, Legislation and Official Sources
- Iraqi Council of Representatives, Constitution of the Republic of Iraq 2005, particularly Articles 14, 16, 19, 100 and 101. Iraqi Constitution — Council of Representatives
- Ministry of Justice, Iraqi Official Gazette, issue 4456 of 7 August 2017, containing the State Council Law No. 71 of 2017. https://moj.gov.iq/upload/pdf/4456.pdf
- Ministry of Justice, State Consultative Council Law No. 65 of 1979, as amended, among the laws published/translated on the Ministry's website. https://moj.gov.iq/view.6790/
- Ministry of Justice, Iraqi Official Gazette, issue 4256 of 2012, containing the Electronic Signature and Electronic Transactions Law No. 78 of 2012. https://www.moj.gov.iq/view.205/
- Ministry of Justice, Iraqi Official Gazette, issue 4826 of 19 May 2025, containing Instructions No. 1 of 2025 to Facilitate Implementation of the Electronic Signature and Electronic Transactions Law. https://moj.gov.iq/view.9268/
- Ministry of Justice, official material on implementation of the Official Languages Law No. 7 of 2014. https://moj.gov.iq/view.6118/
- Ministry of Justice, meeting on simplifying government procedures and services and the Strategic Management Manual approved by Council of Ministers Decision No. 24009 of 2024, 2 September 2024. https://www.moj.gov.iq/view.8431/
- Ministry of Planning, Promoting Digital Transformation and Simplifying Government Services, 20 May 2026. https://mop.gov.iq/archives/37548
- Ministry of Planning, Monitoring Procedural Simplification and the Development of Government Services, 14 June 2026. https://mop.gov.iq/archives/37726
- Office of the Prime Minister / National Centre for Digital Transformation, Ur, the Republic of Iraq's Electronic Portal, information on tracking applications and electronic services, 2026. https://ur.gov.iq/
- Iraqi Council of Representatives, news item from the Committee on Regions and Governorates Not Incorporated into a Region, Planning and the Government Programme, 19 July 2026, including the listing of the Proposed Law on Fair Administrative Procedures and Measuring Government Performance Efficiency. News page on the Iraqi Council of Representatives website
- Supreme Judicial Council, Constitution of the Republic of Iraq 2005, including the text of Articles 100 and 101. https://www.sjc.iq/view.77/
Second — Treaties and International Sources
- United Nations Treaty Collection, Iraq's status under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Iraq's instrument of ratification was dated 25 January 1971, and the Covenant entered into force internationally on 23 March 1976. UN Treaty Collection — ICCPR
- United Nations Treaty Collection, Iraq's accession to the United Nations Convention against Corruption on 17 March 2008. UN Treaty Collection — UNCAC
Third — Official Comparative Legislation
- European Union, Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 41 — Right to good administration. EUR-Lex
- Germany, Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (VwVfG), §§ 28, 29, 39. Gesetze im Internet
- Spain, Ley 39/2015, Procedimiento Administrativo Común de las Administraciones Públicas, particularly arts. 35 and 53. Boletín Oficial del Estado
- France, Code des relations entre le public et l'administration, current text and rules on implied decisions. Légifrance
The references below establish the document's constitutional, legal and comparative foundations. Citations remain outside the articles of the bill to preserve the independence of the legislative text and its suitability for formal referral.
Ali Zuweid's Political Programme · POL-08 · alizuweid.com