Parliament spokesman denies obstruction after Libyan MPs allege lockout

A group of Libyan lawmakers accused parliament’s leadership on Monday of preventing them from entering its headquarters, threatening to meet elsewhere in a dispute over parliamentary rules that has also prompted calls to replace the chamber’s leadership.

The accusation came in a statement issued on behalf of 86 members of the House of Representatives. Parliament’s spokesman, Abdullah Bliheg, rejected suggestions that a sitting had been obstructed, saying the leadership had not formally scheduled one.

The disagreement extends beyond access to the building. Lawmakers pressing for reform have challenged how parliamentary business is organised, whether recent proceedings met the requirements for a valid vote and how a new leadership might be elected.

Monday’s statement, published by MP Essam al-Jehani, said members had intended to discuss reforms and amendments to the House’s internal rules. It did not identify the 86 lawmakers it represented.

The group said it would consider meeting in any Libyan city where members could carry out their duties. It cited Article 137 of the parliamentary rules as the basis for its next meeting and warned of further action if the situation continued.

Bliheg described security measures as routine and unrelated to parliamentary business. He also disputed claims that the House had gone eight months without a sitting, pointing to the previous week’s session chaired by Speaker Aguila Saleh.

That session, held in Benghazi on 14 September, is itself contested.

Bliheg announced that lawmakers had approved the political agreement drawn up by the 4+4 committee, but did not provide an attendance figure. A group of 64 MPs who boycotted the sitting questioned whether it had achieved a quorum.

Those members argued that 87 lawmakers were required and warned that decisions taken without sufficient attendance could face legal challenges. They also threatened to convene under the oldest member to elect a new parliamentary leadership.

MP Abdelmonem al-Orfi separately denied that military personnel or vehicles had prevented lawmakers from entering the headquarters. He said disagreements involving some members and the leadership did not represent the position of the entire House.

The House of Representatives’ spokesman has rejected allegations that a parliamentary sitting was obstructed on Monday, after a statement issued on behalf of 86 MPs accused the leadership of preventing them from entering the headquarters.

Abdullah Bliheg said no official sitting had been called for 21 September and described security procedures as routine and unrelated to the work of the House.

The MPs said they had intended to discuss parliamentary reforms and amendments to the internal rules. Their statement, published by MP Essam al-Jehani, did not name the members it represented.

They warned that restrictions on access would not prevent them from meeting elsewhere, saying they were prepared to convene in another Libyan city. The statement cited Article 137 of the House’s rules as the basis for their next meeting and held the leadership responsible for any further escalation.

The dispute follows the boycott of the 14 September sitting in Benghazi by 64 MPs, who questioned its quorum and threatened to hold a session chaired by the oldest member to elect a new leadership.

Bliheg announced that the House had approved the 4+4 committee’s political agreement during that sitting, without specifying attendance. The boycotting MPs said a quorum required 87 members and warned that decisions adopted without it could be challenged in court.

Monday’s statement also alleged that members had faced similar restrictions about eight months earlier. Bliheg separately dismissed claims that the House had not met during that period, citing the previous week’s sitting under Speaker Aguila Saleh.

MP Abdelmonem al-Orfi also denied that a military force had blocked access to the headquarters or prevented a session from taking place. He said disagreements between some MPs and the leadership did not reflect the position of all members.