Leaked details raise questions over political pressure, judicial independence and the fate of a case that has shaken Lebanon for six years
In light of the importance of Attorney General Mohammad Saab finalizing the Public Prosecution’s review of the Beirut Port explosion file and handing it over to Judicial Investigator Judge Tarek Bitar, marking a significant step toward Bitar’s final decision in the crime that has shaken Lebanon over the past six years, the leak of the review has raised serious and concerning questions about the motives behind its disclosure. The leaked review included accusations against former President Michel Aoun, which were later withdrawn, while the names of ministers Ali Hassan Khalil and Ghazi Zeaiter and former General Security chief Abbas Ibrahim remained in the leaked version. This has raised questions about the course the file will take, and whether it will remain strictly judicial or enter a new phase of political tension if Aoun’s name has indeed been withdrawn while the names of the three former officials from the Shiite community remain.
With the transition to summoning or judicial measures against Khalil, Zeaiter and Ibrahim, legal circles fear that the file could turn into a new political crisis, reflected in how political forces respond to the judiciary and whether the case will be allowed to follow its legal course or once again be drawn into the arena of immunities and political balances.
The file has indeed entered a highly sensitive phase, with Judge Saab stating in his review that Khalil and Zeaiter bear criminal responsibility, alongside Youssef Fenianos and former Prime Minister Hassan Diab. However, the final word remains with the judicial investigator, who can either adopt the review or bypass it before issuing his accusatory decision.
Abbas Ibrahim’s case follows a different procedural path, as Bitar had previously interrogated him as a defendant in investigations involving several security and military officials.
The circles do not underestimate the significance of what is contained in the review, but they stress that summoning individuals of such political and security weight does not constitute a verdict of guilt, just as the prosecutor’s review is not a final judicial decision.
Politically, any new procedure could be interpreted as a transition from the open investigation phase to the phase of determining responsibility, which is, in practice, the most difficult test of whether the file can reach its judicial conclusions without succumbing to the political considerations that have governed it and disrupted its course over the years.
In the cases of Khalil and Zeaiter, the investigation had previously become linked to a prolonged judicial and political confrontation. Last January, the Beirut Court of First Instance issued a ruling fining them for what it considered an abuse in exercising the right to prosecute and defend, leading to the disruption of the investigation.
Therefore, if a crisis does erupt, it will not only concern individuals, but rather the more critical and dangerous question: Will the judiciary be allowed to operate independently of political pressures and influence when the “axe” falls on the necks of senior political and security officials?
At this level, three paths intersect: the first is judicial, aimed at closing the file according to legal norms; the second is political, which may view the summonses as targeting sectarian or political balances; and the third is national, represented by the Lebanese people and the families of the blast victims who continue to await justice.
According to the circles, the real danger does not lie in judicial summonses themselves, but in the possibility that they could lead to a reproduction of the battle that previously disrupted the investigation; namely, a return to retaliatory lawsuits against judges, challenges to judicial authority, immunity and political pressure. This could once again turn the file into a political crisis unless a political decision is made to stop obstructing the judiciary and allow it to complete its course, while guaranteeing the right to defense, the presumption of innocence and the implementation of any decision according to the law for all, without exception or selectivity.
Despite Justice Minister Adel Nassar’s denial of all leaked information, his rejection of what was circulated about judicial sources and his confirmation that the judicial process is taking its course, the damage has already been done. The message behind the leak has achieved its goal, revealing that the situation has not changed and that the decisive political decision of the authorities has yet to be issued.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.
Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter
