Listen to the article
“Old habits die hard.” This proverb is fitting to Mount Lebanon Public Prosecutor Judge Ghada Aoun’s situation, as she seems unwilling to change her behavior or reciprocate the conciliatory efforts of Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation Jamal Hajjar. True to the saying “Nature prevails over nurture,” Aoun has once again defied Hajjar’s decisions, just as she did with his predecessor, Judge Ghassan Oueidat, over the past four years. She is backed by unwavering support from former President Michel Aoun and his political party who appointed her in this sensitive position, turning her into a fierce tool against their political rivals and the banking sector. Dubbed as the “Judge of the Mandate,” namely Michel Aoun’s, Ghada Aoun has relentlessly targeted Lebanese banks and reported them to international authorities, aiming to have them included on international sanctions lists.
For four months, Judge Jamal Hajjar’s attempts to reach an understanding with Ghada Aoun proved futile. Despite numerous meetings and discussions, he could not convince her to espouse standards of objectivity and justice in handling the cases under her jurisdiction. Before their disagreement escalated publicly, our fellow news outlet Houna Lebanon learned from an informed source that four weeks ago, the Public Prosecution Office received four complaints from parties impacted by cases pending before Judge Aoun in Mount Lebanon. These cases included complaints from banks accusing her of legal overreach. As a way to check the accuracy of her somewhat questionable actions, Hajjar sent a letter to Aoun, requesting access to the relevant case records to oversee and assess her judicial proceedings.
In this context, the same source disclosed that both Hajjar and the judicial authorities were caught off guard with Ghada Aoun’s unpredicted response: an outright refusal to hand over the files. She claimed that the public prosecutor was overstepping his authority. But the law is pretty clear: The public prosecutor, as the head of public prosecution offices and judicial police across Lebanon, has the right to review all files and issue binding directives for their investigation. The source emphasizes that the public prosecutor “has the authority to withdraw any case from the hands of the investigative judge’s purview, not just from the Public Prosecution Court of Appeals.”
Furthermore, the aforementioned source didn’t shy away from mentioning that Ghada Aoun’s response included a verbal attack on Hajjar, the President of the Supreme Disciplinary Authority, Judge Suhail Abboud, and several public prosecutors across many regions. In addition, Aoun “conditioned the receipts of the lawsuits filed against her in exchange for Judge Suhail Abboud – as President of the Supreme Disciplinary Authority– stopping all investigations regarding her, and closing this file for good.”
However, the response of the “Judge of the Mandate” was deemed as an act of defiance against her immediate superior, prompting swift action from Judge Hajjar. The source revealed that he “referred her to the Judicial Inspection Authority, requested an investigation into her conduct, and initiated disciplinary measures against her.” The public prosecutor didn’t stop there, according to the source. He went further by “sending letters to the caretaker Minister of Justice, Henri Khoury, and to Judge Suhail Abboud, informing them of Aoun’s actions.” This underscores that the public prosecutor “has the authority to take specific actions within his jurisdiction against Judge Aoun, who has shown utter disregard for legal norms, hierarchical fundamental principles, and the institutional integrity of the judiciary, which require subordinates to respect their superiors and comply with their directives.”
