Al-Lafi: Final rulings issued by the highest judicial authority in the country are not embellished by decrees, nor are they fortified by announcements.

Tripoli, February 17, 2026 (LANA) – Presidential Council member Abdullah Al-Lafi stated that final rulings issued by the highest judicial authority in the country cannot be embellished by decrees or reinforced by announcements; they are inherently binding and must be respected. It is a fundamental principle of legitimacy that what is already finalized cannot be redone, and what is already enforceable does not require enforcement.

This statement was made in a tweet posted by Al-Lafi on his account on the X platform, referring to the decree issued yesterday, Monday, by the head of the Presidential Council.

Al-Lafi stated that the rulings of the Libyan Supreme Court are inherently final and binding, deriving their strength from themselves, not from subsequent ratification or a subsequent endorsement. They represent the embodiment of legal truth, and their authority is supreme and cannot be superseded. To imagine that the implementation of a final ruling requires an additional formula or a newly created framework is to overturn the hierarchy of rules and transform the principle of res judicata into a mere suggestion subject to approval.

He further questioned, "What if the instrument intended to 'support' what is already supported is itself flawed in a way that undermines its formal and substantive integrity? In that case, we are not dealing with strengthening implementation, but rather with disrupting an established principle and adding to it rather than enriching it."

He added, "When the implementation of final rulings issued by the highest judicial authority in the country becomes as if it were awaiting 'administrative permission' to see the light of day, we have introduced into jurisprudence something unknown even in comparative legal texts." He emphasized that the rulings of the Libyan legal system, by its very nature, is decisive and effective, deriving its strength from itself, not from subsequent ratification or a posthumous endorsement. It is the embodiment of legal truth, and its authority is supreme and cannot be superseded.

He added, “To imagine that the execution of a final judgment requires an additional formula or a newly created framework is to overturn the hierarchy of rules and transform the principle of res judicata into a mere proposal subject to approval. And what if the instrument intended to ‘support’ what is already supported is itself flawed in its formal and substantive integrity? In that case, we are not dealing with strengthening the execution, but rather with disrupting an established principle, adding something that does not enrich but rather burdens it.”

...(LANA)...