Political responsibility for the port explosion: the judicial investigator “escapes”

Three months and 21 days have passed since the Beirut port explosion, which turned it into a disastrous city and claimed the lives of more than 200 people, while the Lebanese are still awaiting the results of the investigation. The accusations and complaints that affected the employees in the port of different ranks continue, the last of which was yesterday, the complaint of the discriminatory prosecutor, Judge Ghassan El-Khoury, against each of: the member of the Supreme Customs Council Hani Al-Hajj Shehadeh and the former acting director of the Beirut customs district, Musa Hazima, bringing the number of defendants to 33. Of them, 25 were arrested in presence and two in absentia. The judicial investigator of the crime, Judge Fadi Sawan, received the new allegation from the Prosecutor’s Office, provided that he heard their testimonies as defendants after having previously questioned them as witnesses.

In addition to these claims made, Sawan is working on another line that remains stifled. The judicial investigator, through the discriminatory Attorney General, Judge Ghassan Awaidat, sent a letter to the House of Representatives asking it to take whatever it deems appropriate regarding the responsibility of the ministers for neglecting “what” contributed to the port explosion. Sawan said in his letter that, months after the attack, the parliament had played no role. It says that based on the investigations that have been carried out, “there may be suspicion of negligence” by officials and ministers who have followed the ministries of Finance, Works and Justice, and that the House of Representatives “must do what it deems timely in accordance with two articles of the constitution. ” The first is Article 70, which says verbatim that “the Council of Representatives can accuse the Prime Minister and the Ministers of committing high treason or violating their duties, and the accusation is not allowed to be issued except by a two-thirds majority. of the total number of Board members ”. And the second is Article 71, which says that “The accused minister is being tried before the Supreme Council to try presidents and ministers.”
This message did not bring any accusations to the ministers, but rather emphasized the need for parliament to decide what it deems appropriate for them, after Sawan decided to take the burden off his back under the weight of popular pressure, and lay the responsibility to Parliament. In the same book, Sawan mentions successive heads of government since the arrival of the ammonium nitrate shipment at the port of Beirut (i.e. Tamam Salam, Saad Hariri and Hassan Diab), but without asking parliament to take any action on her against.

Some of the stakeholders asked Hariri to contact Oweidat to inquire about the purpose of the letter.

While it is not possible to say with certainty about the background of what Sawan has done so far, the judicial investigator could have taken another way to accuse successive ministers, as well as heads of government, if what was wanted was a real and serious accountability. While the constitution and laws have established a mechanism to prosecute presidents and ministers in their field of work, granting them immunity that can only be lifted by parliament, there is jurisprudence that believes that there are crimes that are not covered by this immunity. Consequently, it would have been more useful for Sawan, to confirm his seriousness, to issue an accusation against the ministers and presidents whom he considers negligent, and to make this decision a fait accompli that the State cannot ignore, because the decisions of the judicial investigator cannot be dismissed, appealed or appealed. He is a person with absolute powers, and in case he makes such a decision, no one can reconsider. Consequently, it can be said that Sawan’s message to Parliament falls within the framework of evading responsibility under the pretext of the laws and throwing the ball on the court of the House of Representatives, knowing that Parliament will not take any action mentioned. , for various reasons, among which it stands out that the judges have not been appointed to the Supreme Council. Prosecute presidents and ministers so far, despite the election of their deputies. Therefore, it is almost impossible in light of the severe political division in the country to provide the votes of two-thirds of parliamentarians to prosecute ministers and presidents suspected of negligence, negligence or participation in crime.
This message, which was circulated yesterday with information about it, caused great confusion about its purpose. Informed political sources said: “Hariri was contacted by some of those concerned and asked to speak to Oweidat and ask about the intended message.” It should be noted that Sawan concluded his message by saying that “he reserves the right to judge all Lebanese.” Was it intended to act in case the Council did not respond, or were they just words in the air?

Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here