Does Sawan make his decisions according to the mood of public opinion?

The judicial investigator, Judge Fadi Sawan, is moving very slowly in the ongoing investigation to uncover the truth about what happened in the port of Beirut on August 4 and to hold those responsible for the negligence and recklessness that led to the explosion that caused the disaster in Beirut. Although Sawan wishes to stay out of the limelight, the man works to increase public opinion and media pressure rather than seek to achieve law and apply justice. Perhaps the most prominent sign of this was the judicial investigator’s retraction of his decision two days ago, agreeing to transfer the detained Director General of Customs Badri Daher to a customs prison. Although the decision is rejected, Judge Sawan withdrew from it, due to pressure from the media and the campaign against him, since it is registered against him and not against him. However, scrutiny of the course of the investigation indicates that Judge Sawan’s steps are being weighed to satisfy the public. A good example is the decision to detain several agents who worked at the port. There is no clear standard that I follow. It also limits liability to junior officers without ensuring the role of their superiors and if there is any negligence from higher levels.

Judge Sawan illegally arrested the two General Security officers, Charbel Fawaz and Daoud Fayyad. The two officers carried out their responsibilities to the fullest. They informed their management of the nitrate case and closely followed the file and wrote 14 correspondence and sent it to the officer in charge of them, informing him of all the information available on the presence of ammonium nitrate in the port and the developments that occurred in the file, noting that the role of the Department of General Security in the port ends here. The origin of its missions is limited to people entering and leaving Lebanese territory through the sea port.
Why didn’t the forensic investigator listen to the officer in charge of the two arrested officers or the agency director to verify that they were performing their duties? The first was before the arrest decision was made, to hear the head of the Information Division, Brigadier General, awarding Sawaya or the Director General, Major General Abbas Ibrahim, to find out if the two officers at the port had committed a crime or a violation, or if they fulfilled their duties to the fullest extent. Has the judicial investigator read the tasks assigned to the General Security investigation in the port and has he discovered what is not mentioned in the texts that regulate the work of General Security? Is it reasonable that the judicial investigator is unaware of the mechanism of action of the Public Security agents? How can you place two innocent people among the suspects in a crime of this magnitude? Is it the same as someone who has fulfilled their legally determined duty, and someone who has failed and did not lift a finger?

Judge Sawan arrested two officers who had fulfilled their legal duties to the fullest

What about the state security officer, who was divided between those who say he should be rewarded and those who demand that he be held accountable? Although the leaked documents of the State Security investigation suggest that he did not attend a file of this danger without transmitting a clear image, and despite the fact that the State Security Directorate asked him to carry out an investigation in the first month of 2020, Four months passed before the investigation began. But shouldn’t the forensic investigator investigate the head of the State Security Information Division or the director of the public apparatus to find out what really happened?
The standard by which Judge Sawan is guided is not yet understood. The former and current Director General of Customs was detained, but only the head of the Port Security Office, Brigadier General Antoine Salloum, was detained. What about the former bureau chief who was bureau chief the day the ship “Roussos” docked and the nitrates were unloaded? Why hasn’t he been arrested yet? Why was the former intelligence chief, Brigadier General Edmond Fadel, for whom Eid was writing his reports? What about the current intelligence director, Brigadier General Tony Mansour? Isn’t it mandatory to know if the head of the port office informed his leadership, or intentionally neglected or forgave him? So who is responsible for the recklessness that occurs? What about the current and past army commanders Major General Jean Kahwagi and Joseph Aoun? Is it not mandatory, based on the army letter attached to the file, that the military does not need nitrates, ask them who is in charge of storing explosives or explosive materials or those used in the manufacture of explosives, and who has their authority according to the Arms and Ammunition Law?
Yesterday there was a fire at the crime scene. A new fire similar to the one that caused the first explosion in an area full of security services, who are struggling to find out what really happened. This reveals that lax security still prevails in light of two opinions. The first is that those who know the entrances and exits of the port and the contents of the pavilions are in prison. The second opinion speaks of the fear of the judicial investigator, who will not hesitate to detain anyone to satisfy public opinion, even if it is a source that can provide useful information for the investigation. The owners of the second ruling claim that whoever indicated the location of the four tons of nitrates that were found days ago in the port is in prison. Who would dare to do it again?

Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here