The Karkh Criminal Court in Iraq on Monday sentenced four people were sentenced to six years in prison for promoting the ideology of the banned Baath Party. The court found The defendants are guilty of belonging to and promoting Baath Party ideas, including possessing banned materials on their mobile phones, in Kirkuk province in 2025 and 2026.
The case focused on provisions of the Iraqi Penal Code and Articles 8 and 9 of (First) of Law No. 32 of 2016criminalize the activities of the Baath Party and the promotion of related racist, terrorist and “takfirist” organizations.
The verdict reflects Continue enforcing Iraq’s de-Baathification framework put in place after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that removed Saddam Hussein from power. The policy dismantled Baathist-affiliated institutions, including the military and civil service, and barred high-ranking party members from public employment. Enforcement now largely comes through the Accountability and Justice Commission, which vets political candidates and officials for ties to the Baath Party and retains the power to bar individuals from government positions.
The Baath Party, which ruled Iraq under Saddam Hussein from 1968 to 2003, was officially banned after the invasion. However, the post-invasion legal framework was designed to eliminate party influence over state institutions criticism like Shamiran Mako and some political factions have long argued that the policy has contributed to the mass exclusion of Sunni Arabs from public life. Mako argues that “The lack of parallel, cross-community peacebuilding initiatives increased inter-ethnic distrust of the state-building process, which exacerbated communal fractionalization and exclusion at the start of the transition.”
In a similar case less than a year ago, the Karkh Criminal Court imposed A six-year prison sentence for a defendant for membership and promoting the ideology of the banned Baath Party. The court found that the person had attended Baath Party meetings on a mobile phone and had possession of publications promoting its ideology. The judgment was also issued pursuant to Article 8 (1) of Law No. 32 of 2016.
