
View of the destroyed silos in the port of Beirut, June 27, 2024. (Credit: Mohammad Yassine/L'Orient-Le Jour)
Ten days before the fourth anniversary of the Aug. 4 Beirut port explosion, the relatives of the more than 235 victims, as well as the Lebanese public, seem far from believing that the investigation will be unblocked anytime soon and that justice will be served.
The cause of their skepticism lies in the failure of several meetings aimed at resolving the stalemate between investigative judge Tarek Bitar, who is in charge of the case, and interim Attorney General Jamal Hajjar, who has been acting in this role since February, replacing Ghassan Oueidat who retired.
A year earlier, Oueidat halted the investigation by prohibiting security services from complying with Bitar’s instructions, thus preventing him from issuing summonses and arrest warrants to those implicated in the case, including several political figures.
Upon assuming his role, the new Attorney General pledged to facilitate the resumption of the investigation by exploring ways to achieve this goal. The most effective procedure would be for Hajjar to annul his predecessor’s decision.
Although this measure is not the only obstacle facing the investigative judge, who is targeted by numerous petitions for recusal and state liability, such judicial actions are considered surmountable. In January 2023, Bitar established a legal precedent based on legal studies, asserting that, under the principle of parallelism of forms, he can only be removed from the case by a joint decision of the justice minister and the Higher Judicial Council, who had appointed him in the first place.
To date, discussions between Judges Hajjar and Bitar have not made any progress in lifting the prohibition imposed by Oueidat.
Judge Hajjar stipulated that for Bitar to resume cooperation with security services, the investigation must be divided into three parts: One for prosecuting current and former ministers, which would fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Judicial Council responsible for trying ministers, the second for magistrates implicated by Bitar, to be judged by a judicial body designated by the cabinet and the third for prosecuting Beirut port officials and other defendants without special status, to be handled by Judge Bitar.
Bitar firmly rejected this proposal, asserting that the law authorizes him to oversee the entire case.
“We’re at a standstill,” a source from the Justice Palace told L’Orient-Le Jour.
‘No’ to political arrangements
When asked about what procedure should be taken against the suspected ministers, Youssef Lahoud, member of the compaliants office at the Beiurt Bar, told L’Orient-Le Jour, “The Supreme Council can only try ministers if they breach the obligations of their duties.”
“In the port case, however, they are accused of criminal acts, which falls within the jurisidictions of the investigative judge of the Court of Justice,” he added.
A legal expert who spoke on condition of anonymity recalled that the Supreme Council has never indicated a minister. Such a procedure requires two-thirds majority in Parliament, which is difficult to obtain given the convergence of interests among the various parties represented in Parliament.
Regarding the magistrates implicated by Bitar, Lahoud asserted that Hajjar’s proposal to entrust their prosecution to a government-appointed body is not valid.
“These judges do not hold one of the five highest positions in the judiciary, for which such a body would be competent,” he said, citing the code of criminal procedure.
“If the chambers of the Court of Cassation and its plenary assembly are normally responsible for judging all other magistrates, these jurisdictions are not competent in this case because, in a matter assigned to the Court of Justice, their prerogatives are transferred to the latter,” Hajjar explained.
He further emphasized that the complaints office, of which he is a part, demands “the application of the law.”
“We reject any idea of political arrangements and will never accept that those responsible for the Aug. 4 disaster escape justice, even if they are ministers,” he added.
What’s plan B?
What would happen if the Attorney General and the investigative judge remain steadfast in their respective positions and fail to convince each other?
According to unconfirmed media reports, Judge Hajjar might consider stepping down, allowing Nada Dakroub, the highest-ranking magistrate in the prosecution office and niece of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, to take over.
Judge Bitar hopes the ongoing consultations will succeed, as a good relationship with the Attorney General is essential, especially for the prosecution to receive the indictment he is expected to issue.
Multiple parties involved in the case speculated that Bitar plans to publish this indictment by the end of the year and has no intention of stepping down from the case.
If Ghassan Oueidat’s prohibition against the investigative judge is not lifted, Bitar could find other legal means to finalize his investigation and fulfill his mission.
This article was originally published in L'Orient-Le Jour and translated by Sahar Ghoussoub.