From left to right, the Minister of Justice, Adel Nassar, the presidents of the CSM, the State Council, the Court of Accounts, and the Judicial Inspection, Souheil Abboud, Tannous Mechleb, Mohammad Badrane, and Ayman Oueidate. Photo C.A.
In a context where judicial cases are increasingly being reported in the media, the relationship between judges and the press is marked by major tension due to their differing approaches.
How can one reconcile the duty of discretion required from some with the freedom of expression granted to others, while preserving the confidentiality of the cases and the dignity of those involved? All this while still guaranteeing the public’s right to information, free from pressure and prejudice?
At a symposium titled “The Judge and the Media,” held on Monday and organized by Justice Minister Adel Nassar under the high patronage of President Joseph Aoun, and in collaboration with the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, about 20 figures from the political, legal, judicial and media spheres — including French academics — tackled the issue and proposed avenues for reform.
The event took place at the Phoenicia Hotel in Beirut and was attended by MPs, judges, journalists and lawyers.
Speaking on behalf of Aoun, the justice minister recalled that “a judge’s duty is to guarantee freedom of expression,” while emphasizing that “this freedom cannot be exercised without the obligation to avoid defamation.”
Media freedom “excludes attacks on the dignity of judges and rendering judgments in the place of the courts,” Nassar added.
In the same vein, the President of the Higher Judicial Council, Souheil Abboud, condemned “media trials that infringe on private life,” while the head of the Beirut Bar Association, Fadi Masri, stated that “judgments cannot be rendered in the street, on social media, or by the media,” underscoring “the presumption of innocence.”
This position was shared by Mireille Najm, a member of the Constitutional Council, who regretted “judgments being pronounced before verdicts are officially delivered.”
Hervé Lecuyer, a professor at Paris II, cited the recent cases of French actor Gérard Depardieu, accused of sexual assault, and the president of the National Rally, Marine Le Pen, who was sentenced in the court of first instance to two years in prison and five years of ineligibility. Some media outlets issued judgments against Depardieu early on, even though his trial is still ongoing; similarly, Le Pen’s ineligibility had been widely debated in the media well before her conviction.
The Head of the Lebanese Judges Association, Najate Abou Chacra, investigative judge at the military court, noted that when it comes to the dynamic between media and judiciary, the media “is more powerful” because “it has access to the people.”
Former Justice Minister Marie-Claude Najm spoke of “a radical opposition” between the two professions concerning timelines. “The judiciary works on a long timeline; it requires patience, silence, serenity, nuance (...), rationality (...), research and reflection. The media, on the other hand, operate in a logic of immediacy (...), of the spectacular, of emotion, and sometimes of Manichaeism,” she said.
As another difference, the HJC president highlighted the “difference in working methods.”
“The judge is armed with the law and the principles of a fair trial, avoiding interaction with the media, while the media rely on secret sources, sometimes unreliable or biased,” he said.
In any case, “there must be a balance between the freedom of information and the protection of individuals targeted by the media,” said Nassar, while Youmna Fawaz, an investigative journalist, stated that “the judiciary must work with the executive branch to strengthen the protection of journalists,” emphasizing the important role of the media in a democratic society. They are “the first whistleblowers of justice,” added Najm.
The debate also focused on the judges’ duty of discretion, within which the former president of the Lebanese Judges Association, Faisal Makki, had been prosecuted in 2022 for speaking live on television without prior authorization.
Makki stated that it was only after Judge Ayman Oueidate took charge of the Judicial Inspection Authority on March 27 that his case was closed without further action. In this regard, Valérie Dervieux, a judge at the Paris Court of Appeal, noted that French judicial syndicates have the right to communicate. Similarly, prosecutors can “speak about ongoing procedures,” as long as they provide “objective information (...) in order to counter rumors and false information.
What solutions?
The justice minister advocated for the creation of a communication department within the HJC. On this point, his opinion is in line with Randa Kfoury, honorary president of a chamber at the Court of Cassation, who supports the idea of “a specialized communication service, tasked in particular with explaining the reasons behind the lengthy time taken to issue a decision, or with announcing hearing and judgment dates.”
“To better protect potential witnesses, it should not be the judge handling the case who communicates this information,” she said.
Mounir Younes, a journalist at L’Orient-Le Jour, for his part, said he is awaiting the law on the independence of the judiciary, which is currently being reviewed by a parliamentary subcommittee chaired by MP Georges Okais, who was present at the event. This law would help reduce political interference in the judiciary, which would then be shielded from media criticism.
“Although such a law cannot come into being without the active contribution of the political establishment,” said Issa Goraieb, editorialist at L’OLJ, who also advocated for “a law on cyber information.”
Okais recommended drafting new laws concerning the print media court and organizing judicial justice, as the current laws date back to the 1960s. He also stated that the new information law will be based on “responsible freedom, creating a national regulatory authority and cleansing the journalism profession.”
Benoît Dumontet, a lawyer and director of Haute École des avocats conseils (HEDAC) in France, emphasized the need for “detailed reasoning in judicial decisions in the face of media criticism.” This solution was also supported by Kfoury, who additionally proposed teaching media communication to judges, as well as specialized legal training for journalists.
This article was originally published in French and translated by Joelle El-Khoury.
