#️⃣ Part One

The Controversy Returns: The Law Takes Effect — and Mothers Pay the Price

The issue of the “Jaafari Code” in Iraq has resurfaced after it entered into practical effect and its consequences began appearing on the ground.

Following the vote on the First Amendment to Personal Status Law No. 188 of 1959 on January 21, 2025, the controversy ceased to be merely theoretical and developed into a serious social crisis, particularly with the law being applied retroactively to marriage and divorce contracts that had previously been concluded.

In recent months, clear cases of retaliation have emerged, with former husbands using “Decision 93” issued by the Federal Court of Cassation — which allows a husband to amend previously concluded marriage contracts unilaterally, without the wife’s consent — as a means of pressure or revenge years after divorce.

One affected woman says:

“I married under a certain law, and after the separation the law changed, which means mothers can be deprived of their children. I have a young daughter, and from now on I am thinking about what I will do when her father takes her, even though he has not seen her for two years.”

On July 18, 2026, dozens of mothers organized a protest outside the Supreme Judicial Council in Baghdad’s Harithiya district, demanding the cancellation of “Decision 93,” guarantees that contracts cannot be amended unilaterally, and that laws should not be applied retroactively to contracts that have already ended.

Ansam Salman, head of the Isen Organization for Human Rights, called on the Supreme Judicial Council to “respond to the demands of Iraqi women and consider the best interests of the child.”

The protesters are personally appealing to Judge Faiq Zidan to intervene.

But the central question remains: Is Zidan the key to the solution, or has he been — and does he remain — part of the problem?

Behind the Curtain: The “Single-Basket” Session and Legal Violations

Many place the blame on MPs for what happened during the January 21, 2025 parliamentary session — and rightly so. But the issue runs much deeper than what took place behind parliament’s doors that day. It is part of a broader struggle over the engineering of centers of influence and control.

During that session, the Iraqi parliament voted on three laws at once — the Personal Status Law, the General Amnesty Law, and the Property Restitution Law — in what became known as the “single basket.”

Parliamentary sources described the session as “illegal and in violation of procedures,” saying that the three laws were passed without ensuring that the required legal quorum was present. This prompted several MPs to challenge the constitutionality of both the session and the procedures followed by the parliamentary leadership.

The Coordination Framework itself stated that:

“The violations that accompanied the parliamentary session, including the absence of a legal quorum and the mechanism of voting on three laws in a single basket, constitute a dangerous precedent and a clear and explicit violation of the law and the parliament’s internal regulations.”

This hurried passage violated the principles of representative parliamentary government because MPs were not given sufficient opportunity to debate these laws thoroughly and freely. The process therefore resembled a parliamentary surrender to a political will determined to push all three laws through at once.