Iraqi court clears former parliament speaker Mohammed al-Halbusi of forgery charges

Iraq's judiciary has acquitted Mohammed al-Halbousi, leader of the Taqaddum (Progress) Party and former Speaker of Parliament, of all charges related to forgery and document manipulation, the party said on Monday. 

 The Central Anti-Corruption Criminal Court said the investigation into al-Halbousi and two other individuals had been closed due to insufficient evidence. The court stated that the accusations lacked merit and that the investigative documents did not justify referring the accused to trial.

The decision upholds an earlier ruling issued on 12 March 2025 by the investigative judge to close the case under Articles 289 and 288 of the Iraqi Penal Code, as well as Articles 47 and 49 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The Taqaddum Party, founded in 2019 by al-Halbousi, positions itself as a non-sectarian, reformist movement aiming to build a civil and modern state. 

In the 2021 parliamentary elections, Taqaddum secured 37 seats, becoming the second-largest individual party after the Sadrists.

Al-Halbousi, originally from Anbar province, served as Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament from 2018 until his removal on 14 November 2023. Iraq's Supreme Federal Court revoked his parliamentary membership on charges of forgery related to an MP's resignation letter, ending his tenure as one of the country's most influential Sunni politicians.

Following the 2023 ruling, debate emerged in Iraq over whether al-Halbousi could seek to return as parliament speaker, with accusations surfacing that Iraq's Supreme Federal Court had become "politicised".

Legal experts told The New Arab that al-Halbusi cannot appeal or reclaim the post of parliament speaker, since decisions of Iraq's top court are final and binding.

The experts also noted that while the Supreme Federal Court convicted al-Halbousi for breaching his parliamentary oath, it did not formally refer him to criminal trial on forgery charges.

They noted that a formal conviction for forgery—regarded as a "crime of dishonour"—would have barred him from participating in the political process entirely.

According to these experts, the court's approach was intended to soften the ruling and allow him to remain politically active.

They added that the Central Anti-Corruption Criminal Court's recent decision is not contradictory to the Supreme Federal Court's earlier verdict.