The “Illicit Enrichment” law also affects ministers and deputies

News: The exaggeration that arose on the Illicit Enrichment Law that was approved yesterday is not justified. The law stipulates in its article 11 that the crime of illicit enrichment is not linked to the immunities provided for in article 70 of the Constitution. Consequently, the House of Representatives approved by majority that the ministers, deputies and presidents, as employees and judges, avail themselves of the provisions of the law. The article on which the joint commissions suspended their work, leaving the matter in the hands of the general assembly, indicated that “the crime of illicit enrichment is considered outside the concept of non-compliance with functional duties and subject to the jurisdiction of the Judiciary.” Some deputies considered at the time that this article contradicts the content of article 70 of the Constitution, so that the approval of the law in its current form would amount to a constitutional reform, requiring a different legislative route (a session dedicated to reforming the constitution ).

That position was taken by the Future Movement to yesterday’s plenary session, so Deputy Hadi Hobeish reiterated that this article contradicts the constitution, and ministers, deputies and presidents should be excluded from it. Similarly, the Vice President of Parliament, Elie Ferzli, had indicated that he had prepared a study on immunities, but President Nabih Berri insisted on separating the two issues. He said that “he was present as soon as possible to hold a session to amend the constitution and lift everyone’s immunities.” But he proceeded to vote on the bill article by article. The only amendment to article 11 refers to the elimination of the phrase “labor duties”, to conclude the wording that “the crime of illicit enrichment is considered a normal criminal offense and is subject to the jurisdiction of the judiciary.”

secondIn proportion to the majority, this amendment seemed to emphasize the submission of all officials to the Illicit Enrichment Law, but with regard to the “future”, that was an exception for ministers and deputies. Deputy Hadi Jubaysh confirmed, in a Council statement, that “the immunity of the deputy is constitutional and illicit enrichment is a criminal offense, and the current text does not extend to the prime minister or ministers. In an attempt to suggest that the law falls short of condemning all those involved in illicit enrichment, it demanded that the law affect the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, the President of Parliament and the employees, but linked it to the reform of the constitution, calling for a constitutional amendment to lift immunities for all people.

Before him, the deputy Ibrahim Kanaan had indicated, via Twitter, that the law was approved without exception of ministers, representatives or any public servant, for which he considered illicit enrichment as a normal crime subject to the ordinary judicial power. Representative Gebran Bassil also congratulated the parliament, the subcommittee and its head for “achieving the subordination of parliamentarians, ministers and all employees to the illicit enrichment law, which the strong Lebanese bloc has achieved in the process of holding all those responsible accountable. of the public service “.

Emphasizing the interpretation that refers to the inclusion of ministers and representatives, The president of the council agreed to Canaán’s request to include a note in the minutes that the crime of illicit enrichment is not a violation of labor obligations.

As soon as the law is issued in the Official Gazette, the judiciary is obliged to implement it. And if Article 11 caused a fabricated uproar, then Article 1 was clear in its indication that the provisions of the law apply to anyone who performs a public office or public service, whether appointed or elected … ”including any constitutional, legislative or judicial, executive, administrative, military or financial position ”. Consequently, whoever opposes this formula must go to the Constitutional Council to challenge the constitutionality of the law.