The episode of Al-Bilad program discussed Saturday facts that were told for the first time about the scenes of political money in the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum, and the reason behind the failure of the national interest in the face of “corrupt” money.
Criteria for selecting members of LPDF
The member of the Political Dialogue Forum Ahmed al-Sharkasi began his speech to the “Al-Bilad” program on “218News”, by noting that the LPDF was a mechanism created to represent the parties to the conflict or the actors in the Libyan political scene through delegates.
He continued: “The number of members of the House of Representatives and the High Council of State in the LPDF is (26), in addition to representatives of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, Speaker of the House of Representatives Aqila Saleh, Fathi Bashagha, Fayez Al-Sarraj, and Ahmed Maitiq, along with the armed forces in Tripoli, and a representative of the armed forces from Al-Zawiya to Ras Ajdair,” noting that these representatives had a role in the success of the political dialogue forum, which produced a government that was accepted.
Al-Sharkasi explained that his selection as one of the members of the LPDF is due to his direct communication with actors on the ground during his continuous calls to stop the war in April 2019, as well as his communication with the UN mission and the international community.
A member of the LPDF confirmed to Al-Bilad that he formally informed Ms. Stephanie Williams that there are people who offer money (bribes) to some members of the Dialogue Forum in order to support certain personalities.
Al-Sharkasi added: “This information was announced for the first time on the media, with the aim of purifying the political climate,” noting that accepting bribes or not is the first test for the Libyan politician, and the notification was in order to ensure the integrity of the political process at the dialogue forum.
He indicated that the UN mission dealt with the corrupt political money file very effectively, and the file is still open for investigation, assuring Al-Bilad that the number of members who received funds to recommend some parties amounted to 9, noting at the same time that more than 75 % of the members rejected the issue of bribes, and worked on the transparency of the political process, while the bribes offered to the mentioned number of members of the Dialogue Forum ranged between 200.000 dollars and 500.000 euros.
He said that the goal of establishing the Political Dialogue Forum is to amend the Presidential Council to a president and two deputies, and to create a separate prime minister, in addition to producing a new executive authority that ends parallel bodies, and setting a specific date for elections.
He added: “The list of Abdel Hamid al-Dabaiba and Mohammed Menfi was completed an hour before the lists were submitted and won, due to corrupt money and internal obstruction that differed according to the stages that the dialogue passed from Tunisia to Geneva. At first, there were those who did not want to change the Presidential Council and then representatives of Abdel Hamid Dabaiba.
Constitutional Basis
A member of the Dialogue Forum Ahmed al-Sharkasi continued his talk to “Al-Bilad” about the constitutional base, saying that the constitutional referendum is a task entrusted to the local institutions, “the HoR and the HCS,” and therefore it will be decided upon if these parties slow down in producing the constitutional basis for elections.
He continued: “The Political Dialogue Forum tried to produce a constitutional basis, but as a result of the government’s allies in the forum, they believed that the conditions that were available to Fayez Al-Sarraj are the same that would be available to Abdul Hamid al-Dabaiba, to continue for a longer period as prime minister, and at the same time they tried to thwart the election proposal, and they are the 17 members. Those who supported the list of Dabaiba and Menfi.”
Al-Sharkasi indicated that they submitted a proposal to postpone the elections, and what the civil movement in Geneva did was a failure of a proposal submitted by the government “from under the table” to postpone the elections, as he described it.
Al-Sharkasi rejected the opinion of some that the LPDF members failed to produce the constitutional basis, but this is an achievement from his point of view, as he added: “If they were allowed to pass the proposal to postpone the elections, it would happen with the road map, as happened with the political agreement. “.
He described the interaction and cooperation between the House of Representatives and the High Electoral Commission as “good”, and does not require the intervention of the LPDF.
