Iraq’s general amnesty law: a political bargain that whitewashes prisons and fuels corruption

The general amnesty law that came into force in Iraq earlier this year has already set free more than 35,000 prisoners and benefited nearly 144,000 others, including detainees and individuals wanted by the courts. While Sunni political forces hailed the law as a long-awaited “victory” for their constituents, many of whom had languished in jail under fabricated charges based on the notorious “almukhbir al-sirri” (“secret informant system”), it has quickly been denounced as the outcome of a sweeping political bargain to form the current government. Its expansion to cover serious crimes and high-level corruption cases has triggered widespread criticism at home and abroad.

Sunni leaders had made the amnesty a central demand in their negotiations, presenting it as a step to redress the arbitrary detentions and false terrorism charges that scarred their communities. But Shi‘a factions moved to broaden the scope of the law, ensuring that crimes such as murder, drug trafficking, and corruption were included. Critics say the expansion was designed to release influential figures linked to these groups, turning the law into a tool to “whitewash prisons”.

“This law does not contain the necessary transparency to monitor its implementation”, warns political analyst Laith Natiq.

That means there is a very real possibility that it will become a cover for releasing major criminals and corrupt officials, beyond the public’s knowledge.

The concerns go further. Although the law excludes those convicted of terrorism-related killings, many fear it could still lead to the release of dangerous individuals accused of supporting extremist groups.

Dr. Ihsan al-Shammari, head of the Political Thinking Center in Baghdad, says the amnesty was never just a legislative decision: “It was born out of political understandings that produced the current government and the three presidencies. Sunni blocs pushed for it as part of their electoral commitments to communities devastated by arbitrary arrests and the “secret informant system”. That is why it became one of the key demands of the Siyada and Taqaddum coalitions in their deal with Shi‘a forces inside the State Administration Alliance”.

The issue is hardly new. Previous governments -2014, 2018, 2021- had all promised an amnesty law only to retreat under pressure, abandoning their pledges once power-sharing negotiations collapsed.

Corruption at the heart of the law

The law’s most controversial aspect is its inclusion of financial and administrative corruption cases. According to Beiruter sources, what was framed as a mechanism for justice quickly turned into a settlement that shields ministers, governors, and senior officials.

Convicts are required to reach financial settlements with state institutions, enabling massive deals in which offenders pay back only a fraction of stolen funds and stretch repayment over five or six decades. In reality, this allows them to retain vast sums.

Al-Shammari describes the scheme as “a circumvention of justice, releasing convicts without real accountability”. Beiruter sources go further, alleging outright bribery and brokerage in the law’s implementation, with payments of hundreds of thousands of dollars used to secure inclusion in the amnesty.

The case of Noor Zuhair, the man implicated in the infamous “trust fund theft,” illustrates the scale of the issue. Convicted for embezzling $2.5 billion in state tax deposits, Zuhair was nonetheless able to reach settlements that resulted in only a partial recovery of funds. While the judiciary announced the return of some money, it was a fraction of the total. The discrepancy shows how “settlements” can return major embezzlers to political and economic life with little more than a slap on the wrist.

The figures speak volumes: Iraqi courts reported recovering $34.4 million, a negligible amount compared to the billions alleged to have been stolen. “The law gave first-tier corrupt figures, and even those down to the tenth tier, a way to reinvent themselves,” says Natiq, “all while escaping real punishment under the pretext of returning funds”.

Al-Hashimi case: justice denied twice

The release of convicted criminals under the amnesty law has already tainted one of Iraq’s most symbolic cases: the murder of researcher Hosham al-Hashimi.

On July 6, 2020, al-Hashimi was shot dead outside his Baghdad home by a gunman with a silencer. Known for his research on extremist groups and outspoken criticism of militia influence, his killing shocked the nation. A year later, officer Ahmed al-Kanani was arrested and confessed to the crime. His televised trial ended with a life sentence, hailed as a rare moment of justice.

But in a stunning twist, al-Kanani was quietly released, benefiting from political settlements tied to another amnesty law. For many Iraqis, this was a betrayal.

“Hosham’s blood was shed twice,” one of his friends told Beiruter. “First by the assassin’s bullets, and again by a political decision that restored the killer to freedom”.

The case has deepened suspicions about Iraq’s judiciary and underscored the belief that laws are written not to protect the people, but to shield the powerful.

Personal status law: A social setback

The bargains extended beyond the amnesty to Iraq’s Personal Status Law, enacted in 1959 and long regarded as one of the most progressive in the Arab world for protecting women’s and children’s rights. According to Beiruter sources, Shi‘a factions pressed for amendments allowing sectarian interpretations to supersede the unified civil code, a move described by activists as a historic regression.

The trade-offs were stark: Sunnis secured the amnesty, Shi‘a parties advanced their agenda on personal status, and Kurdish blocs bargained for budget shares and oil deals. The result was a package of laws reflecting short-term deals rather than long-term vision.

For Iraqis, the outcome is corrosive. The amnesty has undermined confidence in criminal justice, while the personal status amendments threaten family law and civil rights. Together, they weaken the very foundation of public trust.

The dangers have not gone unnoticed abroad. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both expressed concern that the law could allow dangerous criminals to walk free, warning that without oversight and transparency, it would become a shield for the powerful.

A fragile system

In theory, Iraq’s general amnesty law was meant to heal old wounds, especially the abuses tied to the secret informant system. In practice, it has been manipulated to absolve influential figures of crimes ranging from theft to murder.

The result, analysts say, is a dual collapse of justice: criminal justice weakened by the amnesty, and civil justice undermined by the dismantling of the personal status code.

In a country already battered by corruption, violence, and fragile institutions, the message is stark: Iraq’s political class is gambling away the very foundations of accountability, while ordinary citizens are left to pay the price.