Nalut Institute: Administrative Control Suspended Our Officials Based on Complaint from Iraqi Couple Despite Court Ruling

The Higher Institute of Science and Technology in Nalut has responded to the decision of Administrative Control Authority head Abdullah Gaderbouh to suspend several of its officials, clarifying that the General Department of Investigation had already concluded its probe, referred the case to the Nalut Indictment Chamber, and that the matter is now under judicial authority—beyond the ACA’s mandate.

The institute explained that the case originated from a complaint filed by an Iraqi employee and his wife, who were contracted as trainees at the institute. They had been receiving their salaries according to the terms of their contracts until their final day of work. However, the couple later demanded to be treated as faculty members and to receive the higher salaries of teaching staff, in violation of the agreements signed with them.

The institute said its administration rejected the demand, stressing that “the contract is the law of the parties” and cannot be altered without mutual consent. If the couple no longer wished to continue as trainees, they had the option to request termination of the contract.

It added that both the institute’s director and financial controller had insisted on adhering to the signed contracts and refused to pay teaching staff salaries unlawfully. Their stance, it argued, is well-founded legally, since the couple’s salaries were allocated by the Ministry of Finance’s Budget Department under trainee contracts, and it was legally impossible for the institute to reclassify them as faculty pay, as demanded by the ACA and Audit Bureau.

The institute further noted that the legal status of a faculty member requires a postgraduate degree (Master’s or PhD), while the complainants only held bachelor’s and licentiate degrees. It expressed surprise that the ACA would entertain a complaint from foreign residents without legal residency status against Libyan officials who had upheld public funds by refusing unlawful salary disbursements—contrary to Article 25 of Law No. 20 of 2013, which defines the Authority’s jurisdiction.

The institute also pointed out that the couple had already filed an administrative lawsuit before the Administrative Court of the Tripoli Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the ACA should have refrained from investigating the complaint and left the matter to the judiciary to avoid conflicting rulings—a principle it had respected in the past. Instead, the Authority ignored this principle and overstepped its role.

In closing, the institute questioned what would have happened if its director had authorized the inflated salaries as instructed by the ACA, and the court later rejected the couple’s demands. “How would the excess payments be recovered? Wouldn’t it have been more prudent to let the judiciary decide the matter?” it asked.