High Council of State reshapes 6+6 committee amid renewed political tensions

The High Council of State has voted to reconstitute the electoral laws committee known as the “6+6 Committee”, in a renewed attempt to advance Libya’s stalled political process.

Under the decision, the new committee will consist of six members, including three drawn from the former 6+6 Committee and three from the current committee established earlier by the office of the council presidency.

During the same session, the council also announced the formation of a 15-member committee representing various electoral constituencies to engage directly with the House of Representatives. The move comes amid expectations that the House will issue a corresponding decision to establish a parallel committee operating under the same mechanism.

The session, chaired by High Council of State President Mohammed Takala, reviewed recent political developments, the UN-backed political process, and the challenges facing the council’s role within Libya’s broader political landscape.

In his briefing, Takala stressed the importance of preserving the council’s unity and internal cohesion, stating that any organisational measures adopted were intended to safeguard the institution and strengthen its effectiveness, rather than target specific individuals.

Tensions nevertheless emerged on the sidelines of the meeting after council member Abduljalil Al-Shawish announced that he had been prevented from entering the session.

Speaking to Libya Al-Ahrar television, Al-Shawish claimed that Mohammed Takala had barred him from attending and removed his name from the attendance register, attributing the move to his signing of the “unified budget agreement”.

The High Council of State’s media office later rejected the allegations, describing reports that Al-Shawish had been denied access for that reason as “incorrect”.

The council said the measure taken against Al-Shawish was implemented in line with a decision issued during an earlier emergency session to suspend his membership over what it described as “violations of decisions and regulations”.

It added that the step was aimed at safeguarding the institution’s authority and integrity, free from any personal considerations.