Al-Harati: Finance Minister’s Statement on the Inability to Increase the Basic Pension for Persons with Disabilities Does Not Withstand Legal Scrutiny

Legal adviser Hisham Al-Harati wrote an article stating that the Finance Minister’s justification for the inability to increase the basic pension for persons with disabilities, based on what is referred to as the Unified Development Agreement, has no valid legal foundation.

According to Al-Harati, the agreement is neither a law nor an amendment to existing legislation, nor does it suspend the enforcement of any law. Rather, he described it as a set of political or administrative understandings between executive bodies that do not rise to the level of legislation and therefore cannot repeal, suspend, or restrict legally binding statutory provisions.

He noted that one of the established principles of the Libyan legal system is that legislation takes precedence over administrative decisions and executive agreements. No executive authority, he argued, may refuse to implement a law in force on the basis of subsequent political understandings or executive arrangements, as the hierarchy of legislation is a matter of public order that cannot be circumvented.

Al-Harati further stated that the law amending the minimum wage, which increased the minimum salary to 1,000 Libyan dinars, entered into force before the Unified Development Agreement. Consequently, all legal effects arising from that law became binding and enforceable, and cannot legally be suspended or diminished by any subsequent agreement lacking the force of law.

He also argued that the basic pension is not a fixed amount, but is legally linked to the salary scale of the first employment grade. Therefore, whenever the salary attached to the first grade is increased by law, the basic pension must automatically increase as well. According to him, this increase results directly from the law itself, rather than from a government grant, discretionary decision, or administrative measure.

On this basis, Al-Harati asserted that claims that the basic pension cannot be increased constitute an interpretation that contradicts the law. He said such a position violates the principle of legality, conflicts with the legislative hierarchy, and diminishes financial rights that have been expressly established by the legislature. He emphasized that executive authorities are responsible for implementing the law, not reinterpreting it in ways that obstruct its legal effects.

He stressed that financial rights established under valid legislation are not subject to political negotiation and cannot be made contingent upon administrative understandings or executive agreements. In his view, a state governed by the rule of law must uphold legislation rather than give precedence to political arrangements over statutory provisions.

Al-Harati expressed regret that such statements were made regarding a group that is afforded special legal protection, arguing that the state has a legal obligation to strengthen—not reduce—the rights of persons with disabilities or seek justifications to avoid implementing them.

He added that the rights of persons with disabilities are legal rights, not privileges or grants. If those who formulated the minister’s justification are unaware of the legal principles governing the relationship between legislation and administrative decisions, he said, the legal basis of official statements should be reviewed. If, however, they are aware of those principles and choose to disregard them, he argued that this would amount to disrespect for both citizens and the rights of persons with disabilities.

Al-Harati concluded by emphasizing that persons with disabilities include university professors, lawyers, legal advisers, engineers, experts, administrators, and other highly qualified professionals who fully understand the distinction between law and political understandings, and who recognize that executive agreements neither create legal rules nor repeal legislation.

He concluded:

“Respect for the law is demonstrated through compliance with its provisions, not through media statements. Rights established by the legislature cannot be suspended by administrative interpretation, restricted by political understandings, or diminished through interpretations that contradict the law. The law will remain the supreme authority, and the rights it establishes will remain enforceable until amended by the legislature itself—not by any executive authority, regardless of its position.”