[ad_1]
The Lebanese judiciary has broken taboos and rules by summoning Acting Prime Minister Hassan Diab and other ministers affiliated with influential political parties to an interrogation session as defendants in the ongoing investigation into the bombing in the Beirut port, which took place on August 4.
Next Monday, the judicial investigator in Beirut, Fadi Sawan, scheduled the first interrogation sessions for the Diab defendants, and for both the Minister of Finance, Ali Hassan Khalil, the Minister of Public Works, Ghazi Zaiter, and the minister of Transport, Youssef Fenianos, for “negligence, negligence, causing the death and inconvenience of hundreds of people.” .
An indication that the US Treasury imposed sanctions on Fenianos and Hassan Khalil last September, for their involvement in corruption and for providing support to Hezbollah.
Scenarios for Monday’s session
By Lebanese political standards, various scenarios are expected around Monday’s session, which journalist and political analyst Youssef Diab considers in an interview with Al-Hurra, all of them are likely to happen, despite Judge Sawan’s bold decision.
Diab explained that the environment suggests that these people did not make the decision to appear before the judicial investigator, clinging to the pretext of the need to coordinate with Parliament.
Regarding the possibility of the judge resigning, Diab also ruled this out.
And he believed that the two most likely scenarios for Monday’s session are:
– Postpone the session for another date, taking into account that Judge Sawan has not yet decided his position in case none of the defendants or their agents have attended.
– Send the defendants to legally represent them, provided that the lawyers acting on their behalf present requests for deceleration to take a position or adhere to reasons that justify the absence of ministers, noting that Diab did not set an appointment with Sawan to set a date for your hearing in the Great Serail in accordance with the laws in force.
The political analyst ruled out the possibility of issuing an arrest warrant against the accused, considering that this corresponds to Judge Sawan, who can question them with an arrest warrant in writing, or leave them with the residence documents after the session, with confirmation that they did not attend because they insisted they could not be questioned before the House of Representatives lifted their immunity. And from the Illustrious Bar Association, considering that the three ministers also practice law.
“Those involved in the Beirut bombing are the murderers.” The body of a retired colonel raises questions in Lebanon
About four months after the Beirut port explosion, a retired customs colonel, Munir Abu Rajeli, was found dead on Wednesday in the Qartaba area (northern Lebanon). Forensic evidence arrived at the crime scene and their investigations began.
He invoked immunity and parliamentary powers
For its part, the Supreme Council of the Judiciary insisted on the authority of the judicial investigator to prosecute the prime minister and ministers without the possibility of invoking their immunities, explaining that it had sent a letter on November 24 to Parliament to inform it of the existence of doubts in the Judiciary about the accused, but the office of the House of Representatives responded to them on November 26, which found no suspicions about the people mentioned in the investigation.
On the other hand, all the defendants rejected their accusation by the Judiciary, considering that this entails an excess of powers, so that they avoid appearing before Judge Sawan, according to observers.
Hezbollah and Marada
These summons from those close to Hezbollah led him to issue a statement in which he described that “all the measures taken by the investigating judge are far from the policy and purpose, in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, and are not subject to jurisprudence. , interpretation or interpretation, (…) and this is what we do not find in recent proceedings. “Categorically rejecting the absence of uniform standards, which led to what we believe to be a political goal of the people, and ignoring others without a proper balance.”
For its part, the “Marada” movement (to which Venianus belongs) declared, “What we have found today is unfair selectivity and discretion that is not based on correct foundations that lead us to believe that the objective is no longer to clarify the truth, reveal the perpetrators and hold them accountable for their actions, but rather achieve political goals. “.
Sunni alert
This accusation did not go unnoticed, as it raised the sensitivity and alertness of most of the leaders of the Sunni community in Lebanon, considering it an attack on the position of the prime minister, and did not target Diab as a person.
In this context, the Mufti of the Lebanese Republic, Sheikh Abd al-Latif Derian, issued a statement, in which he indicated that “the accusation against the position of prime minister is an unacceptable political objective, violates the constitution and the law for the trial of former presidents and ministers and is part of clearly malicious campaigns that do not serve justice for a particular group without Another is to settle political scores. “
Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri also expressed his refusal to damage the prime minister’s position, so Diab visited his residence in Serail to “show solidarity with him.”
Here, the political member of the Future Movement, lawyer Fadi Saad, confirmed in an interview with Al-Hurra that “Hariri’s position is purely constitutional and legal, and has nothing to do with not summoning the President of the Republic for a investigation “, highlighting that” criticism of the decision is not for sectarian reasons. It is not intended that summoning all Sunni people is equivalent to summoning another person from the Christian sect.
And Saad considered that “sending a letter to parliament, which was carried out denying the suspicions. It does not allow the Judicial Power to annul its powers and prosecute people, who must be tried by law through the Commission for the Trial of Representatives and Ministers, emanating from Parliament “.
He considered that “the accusation is ridiculous, since it is considered to be limited to labor negligence and not terrorism, and the cause of the explosion and the help of an international investigation committee must be determined first, and then the accusation, not the other way around “, stressing that” allowing this step causes the position of prime minister to break a stick, allowing Hezbollah to subsequently instruct the judiciary to prosecute prime ministers without following the necessary legal procedures.
The Lebanese lawyer concluded by saying: “If the parliament is affiliated with the parties, and he considers that there are no suspicions, this does not mean violating the constitution and the laws, and allowing these people to be indicted outside the parliament.”
Legal controversy
In another legal opinion, the former attorney of the International Criminal Court, Diala Shehadeh, stated that “there is a legal debate on this type of powers, but the constitution makes a distinction regarding the trial of presidents and ministers, according to the nature of the crime, since they are only held responsible by Parliament for the crime of high treason. And only breach of labor obligations. “
A “sign of shame” … silos in the port of Beirut, amid calls for demolition and maintenance
It is possible to search and arrest notes
Shehadeh pointed out that “the accusations against the defendants include the crime of causing death, which is a serious crime, specifically involuntary manslaughter, so it is impossible to place it in the category of non-compliance with labor duties and withdrawal of authority from the judiciary.” .
The Lebanese lawyer highlighted that “Judge Sawan’s move is legally correct, since the crimes related to the breach of labor duties are defined in the criminal code in the chapter, crimes against authority, including obstruction of judicial implementation, obtaining benefits through employment and others “.
And he considered that, “if the investigating judge has courage and independence, he has the right to issue a summons in the event that they do not appear before him, and he can also issue arrest warrants in front of him or even in his absence, whenever there is doubt about they”.
