BY :Shatha Kalel
The new Iraqi government, led by Prime Minister Ali Falih Al-Zaidi, has reaffirmed that combating corruption and restoring public confidence in state institutions are among the highest priorities of its governing agenda. In this context, the Prime Minister has placed particular emphasis on personally overseeing major files that have raised concerns regarding financial waste or administrative irregularities, stressing that building a strong and stable state cannot be achieved without transparency, accountability, and the rule of law. Observers believe that reopening major files and reviewing previous contracts and exceptional approvals represents an important step toward safeguarding public funds and strengthening public trust in government institutions.
A series of official documents and government decisions issued throughout 2025 reveal an exceptional administrative process adopted by the Iraqi government concerning the Samarra Infrastructure Project. This process raises fundamental questions regarding the scope of administrative exemptions and the mechanisms used to oversee major public projects involving significant public expenditures.
The file began with the issuance of the Ministerial Council for the Economy Recommendation No. (25034/Q) on **3 February 2025**, which addressed the financial crisis in light of the government’s fiscal commitments. The recommendation emphasized strict expenditure control, prohibited entering into new financial obligations without confirmed budget allocations, and prioritized the payment of outstanding dues for existing projects before initiating new ones.
On **11 February 2025**, the Council of Ministers approved the recommendation through Decision No. (107) of 2025, reaffirming the obligation of all ministries and government entities to comply with expenditure controls and budget allocation regulations. The objective was to limit unplanned expansion in government financial commitments.
Several months later, the Samarra Infrastructure Project emerged as a strategic national project. The Ministry of Construction, Housing, Municipalities and Public Works submitted official requests to the relevant authorities, supported by correspondence from the Ministry of Planning confirming the project’s importance and necessity.
On **3 September 2025**, the Council of Ministers issued Decision No. (685) of 2025, approving the continuation of contract award procedures and the completion of all legal and administrative requirements for the project. The decision also granted exemptions from certain restrictions and procedures established under Decision No. (107) of 2025. Within days, the decision was circulated to the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Finance, the Federal Board of Supreme Audit, Salah Al-Din Governorate, and other relevant government institutions.
Although the official documents confirm that the relevant committees completed the required technical, legal, and financial procedures and classified the project as a service priority for the city of Samarra, the central issue is not the project’s importance itself but rather the nature of the exceptional approvals that were granted. Any administrative or financial exemption, regardless of its justification, should be subject to the highest standards of transparency and oversight because such exemptions inevitably raise legitimate questions regarding the selection criteria, the basis for preferential treatment, and their consistency with the government’s broader fiscal and administrative policies.
A careful review of the official documents reveals an apparent contradiction. On one hand, the government initially emphasized strict expenditure controls and restrictions on new financial commitments due to fiscal pressures. On the other hand, it later granted exceptional approvals allowing a specific project to proceed through special contracting and procurement procedures. This contradiction does not necessarily imply wrongdoing; however, it places a greater responsibility on government institutions to publicly justify the technical, financial, and economic rationale behind these decisions.
This raises several important questions. What criteria justified granting the Samarra Infrastructure Project exceptional treatment? Were the feasibility studies, cost estimates, funding sources, implementation mechanisms, and monitoring plans ever made publicly available? Is there a transparent framework to ensure that project costs will not escalate, implementation will not be delayed, and project specifications will not be altered after contract awards?
In this context, the current Iraqi government, led by Prime Minister Ali Falih Al-Zaidi, has announced its intention to review several major files that have generated public concern in recent years, including the Samarra Infrastructure Project. This review forms part of a broader government initiative aimed at enhancing transparency, combating financial waste, and examining the contracting procedures, procurement decisions, and exceptional approvals granted to major strategic projects. Many observers regard the reopening of this file as an important test of the government’s commitment to transparency, particularly in light of ongoing public debate concerning the project’s financial costs and the significant discrepancies between estimated costs and the figures associated with contracting and implementation procedures. Public attention is now focused on the outcome of any financial or regulatory investigations that may determine whether the procedures complied with legal requirements and whether any administrative or financial irregularities occurred.
Questions surrounding the Samarra Infrastructure Project have intensified amid reports of influential political and economic figures exercising significant influence over contracts awarded within the city in recent years. Political and media circles have also discussed alleged close relationships between certain beneficiaries of these contracts and senior political figures. These claims warrant careful examination by the competent oversight and judicial authorities in order to establish the facts and provide full transparency to the public.
Should it be established through official investigations that any interventions or exceptional approvals were granted on the basis of political influence or personal relationships rather than objective legal and technical criteria, such actions would constitute a serious violation of the principles of fair competition, transparency, and sound public financial management. Consequently, there is a compelling need for the publication of all contracts, procurement decisions, exceptional approvals, and the identities of the beneficiaries, enabling oversight institutions and the public to independently assess the integrity of the entire process based on verified evidence rather than speculation or unsubstantiated allegations.
Past experience in Iraq has repeatedly demonstrated that the principal challenge does not usually lie in issuing decisions or allocating funds, but rather in implementation, monitoring, and accountability. Numerous projects have been announced as strategic national initiatives only to experience years of delay, substantial cost overruns, or failure to achieve their intended objectives.
For this reason, the success of the Samarra Infrastructure Project should not be measured by the number of official documents exchanged or government approvals issued. Rather, it should be judged by the ability of the implementing authorities to translate those decisions into tangible improvements that citizens can experience on the ground. Ultimately, full transparency in publishing project information, contracts, financial costs, implementation stages, and performance outcomes will remain the true measure of the project’s success and the government’s commitment to accountability under exceptional administrative procedures.
Economic Studies Unit – North America Office
Center for Linkage Studies and Strategic Research