Disputes have intensified inside Libya’s House of Representatives after 86 MPs announced on 21 September that they had been prevented from entering the House’s headquarters in Benghazi to hold a session they said was devoted to reforming the institution’s work and amending its internal rules, insisting that the legal quorum was present. The House presidency, however, denied that an official session had been scheduled. Its spokesman, Abdullah Bliheq, said the security measures around the headquarters were routine.
Dispute over quorum and authority to call sessions
The dispute is no longer limited to a session that was not held. It has expanded to issues concerning which body has the authority to call House sessions, the number required to establish a quorum, the mechanism for amending the internal rules, the future of the legislative body’s leadership and the way decisions are made within it.
In their statement issued on 21 September, the 86 MPs said their move came after around 8 months of calling for a session aimed at reforming the House’s work and amending its internal rules. They confirmed that they would continue meeting in any Libyan city, citing Article 137 of the House’s internal rules.
14 September session fuels challenge to procedures
The roots of the current escalation go back to a session held on 14 September, when the House of Representatives announced a unanimous vote on a package of measures linked to the electoral process, including arrangements related to laws governing upcoming elections. A group of MPs, however, boycotted the session and questioned whether it had met the legal quorum.
The House presidency did not announce an official number for those attending the session, while opposing MPs said the required quorum was 87 MPs. They argued that any outcomes issued without reaching that number could be challenged before the competent courts, opening the way for the political and procedural dispute to move into the judicial arena.
MPs call for House reform and leadership election
MP Essam Al-Jahani said that “the reform movement did not begin today”, explaining that its demands included amending the internal rules, reforming working mechanisms and holding elections for the House of Representatives’ leadership. He confirmed that the MPs involved in the move had enough members to hold a session meeting the legal quorum, and said arrangements were under way to hold a session in Benghazi.
By contrast, House member Abdel Moneim Al-Arfi gave a different account, describing allegations that MPs had been prevented from entering the House as “false”. He said that calling official sessions fell within the jurisdiction of the presidency, while members were entitled to hold consultative meetings that did not have the status of official House sessions.
Al-Arfi confirmed that the 14 September session had met the required quorum and procedures, citing the signatures of 103 MPs who supported the agreement. He said the core of the dispute concerned challenging the session’s outcomes, rather than whether it had met the procedural requirements for convening. Legal expert Mahdi Kashbour placed the dispute in its procedural context, explaining that the validity of any decision begins with the validity of the session during which it was issued.
He added that describing the vote as a “consensus” did not remove the need to provide evidence that the required legal quorum had been reached. According to Kashbour, session minutes, attendance lists and the final texts of decisions were the primary references for resolving the dispute. He said decisions could be challenged if a defect was established concerning the quorum, the call for the session, its agenda, the voting mechanism or the jurisdiction of the body that issued the decision.
Experts outline route for challenging decisions
Political analyst Raqi Al-Mismari believes the current crisis reflects older tensions over the management of the House of Representatives and the rotation of its leadership, which has been held by Aguila Saleh for years. This interpretation places the procedural dispute within a broader conflict over the institution’s management and the distribution of influence inside it.
Political analyst and international relations expert Elias Al-Barouni described the developments as “a crisis of rules before it is a crisis of decisions”. He warned that MPs’ move to hold meetings outside the House’s official headquarters could lead to the emergence of a parallel institutional reality, further complicating the existing division within the legislative body.
The dispute comes as Libya’s political process continues to rely on the House of Representatives to approve legal and political arrangements expected to lead to elections and the unification of state institutions. During September, the UN mission and the Security Council welcomed electoral outcomes approved by the House, considering them a step towards overcoming the political deadlock, advancing national elections and unifying institutions.
But the controversy surrounding the 14 September session has revived questions about the House’s ability to issue decisions enjoying broad internal acceptance, amid disagreement among its members over the rules for convening and decision-making mechanisms. The continuation of the dispute also threatens to undermine the House’s role in the expected political and electoral processes.
In a parallel development, a private source said that the dispute within Khalifa Haftar’s camp intersects with the US initiative led by Massad Boulos, particularly on issues related to the distribution of positions and military leadership. The source spoke of differences between Saddam Haftar on one side, and Khaled and Belqasem Haftar and Aguila Saleh on the other, while not all details of the initiative have been officially announced.
On 28 September, Boulos said the time had come to build on progress made in unifying the budget and coordinating economic and security matters, and to support a Libyan-led process leading to elections. These details do not attribute the causes of the parliamentary dispute solely to the external initiative, but place it within an environment where domestic arrangements intersect with international initiatives.
With the dispute continuing over the quorum, the authority to call sessions, amendments to the internal rules and the House leadership, the crisis has become a test of the House of Representatives’ ability to preserve the unity of its work and issue decisions accepted by its members, at a stage when it is expected to play a leading role in upcoming political and electoral arrangements.
