Listen to the article
Far from over, the path to justice for the victims of the Beirut port explosion remains a long and winding one. After Judge Jamal Hajjar was designated interim Attorney General to the Court of Cassation to replace Judge Ghassan Oweidate – and despite Hajjar’s pledge to unblock the inquiry led by Judge Tarek Bitar – the investigation is still on hold. Is there still hope for a settlement? This Is Beirut sheds light on an affair that highlights the endemic neglect and corruption within Lebanese institutions, one that reveals serious loopholes in the country’s political and judicial system.
After numerous meetings held following his appointment as Public Prosecutor, all of which ended in total failure and recognition of the legal deadlock that has hindered the investigation into the port explosion for over a year, Judges Hajjar and Bitar reportedly succeeded last Thursday in finding a way out of the crisis. The investigating judge is said to have decided to continue his work by setting dates for questioning the individuals accused in this case. This would be the final step before closing the file and submitting it to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which should give a principled opinion to allow the publication of the indictment.
The question posed by attorney Nasri Diab, a lawyer at the Court and member of the Beirut Bar’s accusation bureau, is as follows: “Will Prosecutor Hajjar agree to receive this indictment? If so, what will he do with it?”
In that same context, according to leaked information, the Attorney General might be able to recuse himself from the case. This additional measure would further compromise the progress of the investigation. In trying to verify the accuracy of this information, This Is Beirut learned that Jamal Hajjar is unlikely to withdraw. “We know that the retirement of Ghassan Oweidate has caused political tensions regarding the appointment of a successor,” notes lawyer Tamam Sahili, a member of the Beirut Bar’s accusation bureau. “Several names were proposed, including that of Judge Nada Dakroub, who, according to the law, should have replaced him. But as is often the case in Lebanon, politics wins over the law. Therefore, when Judge Hajjar accepted his appointment, he was well aware of the challenges he faced and the gravity and scale of the cases he had to deal with notably the Beirut port case,” she continues, dismissing the possibility of a potential recusal. Moreover, during the last meeting between the accusation bureau and the current prosecutor, the latter “did not express any desire to recuse himself,” confirms Sahili.
According to her, “this is a critical stage where Prosecutor Hajjar, who enjoys a good reputation, is being tested.” She confided to TIB that during the multiple meetings the accusation bureau had with him, “he always showed transparency and cooperation, insisting on the need to resume the investigation and collaborate with Judge Bitar to allow the latter to issue the indictment.” She added that “meetings between the prosecutor and the investigating judge are ongoing to find points of convergence that would eliminate problematic aspects of the case, particularly the lawsuits filed by officials and judges, including Oweidate, against Judge Bitar.” For this, the prosecutor would need, according to the lawyer, a reasonable time frame to reach a solution, estimated at one or two months, especially since Tarek Bitar is “already in an advanced phase of drafting his indictment, with only a few points left, such as questioning some suspects and holding hearings before finalizing his act.”
Is Bitar’s Responsibility Engaged?
The situation has been stagnant for nearly three years, and some legal experts believe that the investigating judge is responsible. “I have no intention of questioning his integrity, but Judge Bitar is currently hindering the investigation,” says lawyer Marc Habka. “By insisting on his positions and preventing another judge from taking over after a prolonged suspension, Judge Bitar will never be able to reach a solution,” he continues. According to him, when one knows that multiple appeals and requests for dismissal have been filed against him – and no decision can be made because the plenary is not constituted – the investigation will always be suspended, even if Attorney General Hajjar could reconsider the decisions made by his predecessor Ghassan Oweidate. “Such an initiative would not change the situation, as the investigating judge will continue to be the subject of appeals,” he insists.
In this regard, he believes that the judge’s responsibility is engaged at two levels: first, “when he directly targeted former ministers and deputies from a specific political camp, knowing that approaching them would undoubtedly lead to such a hostile reaction and the blockage of the investigation.” “In my opinion, Bitar should have started his investigations by questioning officials before summoning political leaders as a last resort,” notes Habka.
Secondly, “how can one explain that after a year of absence, following his dismissal, the judge decides to reverse his decision based on jurisprudence? Why didn’t he do it earlier, knowing that during this period some detainees could have regained their freedom?” the lawyer indignantly asks.
Obstacles to the Inquiry
Fast forward to February 18, 2021, six months after the explosion at the Beirut port that killed 200 people and injured thousands of others: Judge Fadi Sawan, who is tasked with leading the investigation, is removed from his duties. The reason? An appeal for legitimate suspicion was filed by Ali Hassan Khalil and Ghazi Zeaiter, both deputies affiliated with the Amal movement, implicated in this case. The Court of Cassation, which rendered this verdict, also deemed that the judge was a party to the case – his residence in Achrafieh was damaged by the explosion – and is therefore considered a victim of the explosion. This dismissal will mark the beginning of a standoff between a corrupt political class and a justice system struggling to assert itself.
On February 19 of the same year, Tarek Bitar – against whom a multitude of appeals have since been filed by those indicted by the judge in this case – succeeded Sawan. These include requests for the transfer of the case due to the judge’s alleged impartiality and appeals involving the state’s liability for the judge’s alleged misconduct. Mission accomplished for those who worked to prevent him from continuing his investigation. Former Prime Minister Hassan Diab, MPs and former ministers Ali Hassan Khalil, Ghazi Zeaiter, and Nouhad Machnouk, former Minister Youssef Fenianos, former army commander General Jean Kahwagi, and other military and administrative officials, accused of voluntary manslaughter, argued that these indictments do not fall within Judge Bitar’s jurisdiction, as they believe it is the High Court of Justice that should judge and hear presidents, prime ministers, and ministers. However, ‘these individuals are being prosecuted on the basis of a criminal offense and not for gross misconduct in office, as they claim based on the constitutional text,’ judicial sources indicate.
The appeals were not the only obstacles the investigating judge had to face. Even within the Palace of Justice, the judiciary was engaging in a war of the greatest dissolution. With the support of part of the ruling class, the former Attorney General at the Court of Cassation, Ghassan Oweidate, who was himself indicted in the investigation into the double explosion at the port and had recused himself from the case due to his family ties with former Minister Ghazi Zeaiter, returned to the case. But why?
This was in 2023. Suspended since December 2021 due to multiple appeals against the investigating judge, the enquiry resumed unexpectedly with a sudden decision by Tarek Bitar, who decided to reclaim the case, relying on legal texts and a 1995 precedent, thus ending his removal from the case in question. As a result, he ordered the release of five of the 17 detainees involved in the investigation and prepared to launch new judicial proceedings against eight officials, including the directors of General Security, Abbas Ibrahim, and State Security, Tony Saliba.
Finding this decision void, the Public Prosecutor’s Office protested, and Oweidate acted. He filed charges against the investigating judge for “impersonation,” ordered the release of the 17 detainees, and issued an order prohibiting the relevant authorities from receiving any decisions, notifications, or documents from the investigating judge or any entity under his jurisdiction. He considered that the latter had been removed from the case due to the numerous appeals filed against him, which the plenary assembly of the Court of Cassation had been unable to rule on because of a lack of quorum. It is worth noting that, due to the retirement of some members of the plenary assembly of the Court of Cassation, the assembly is still not constituted. The appointment plan previously drafted by the Higher Judicial Council was blocked for months by the caretaker Finance Minister, Youssef Khalil (close to the Speaker of the House Nabih Berri), citing “an imbalance and ambiguity in the text.” The decree was never signed.
Internationally, Justice Takes Over
The Savaro Case – Following the verdict delivered on June 12, 2023, by the High Court of Justice in London against Savaro Ltd, no appeal was filed by the company that imported the ammonium nitrate that exploded on August 4, 2020, at the port of Beirut. “Today, after the expiration of the appeal period, the judgment is enforceable,” explained Professor Nasri Diab. “However, the case is not closed. I am currently working in collaboration with lawyer Camille Abou Sleiman, who represents the Dechert LLP firm, on paths that will allow us to advance in this case,” he continued, before revealing that “further measures will be implemented and announced in due time.”
It is worth noting that, in February 2023, Savaro Ltd was declared civilly liable to the victims of August 4, by a verdict rendered by the High Court of Justice. The company’s name appeared on the contract for the purchase of ammonium nitrate, and Savaro acted in Lebanon as the effective owner of the cargo. After the ammonium nitrate arrived in Lebanon, and after the goods were unloaded at the port of Beirut and moved to hangar 12, the company made several attempts to retrieve it.
In January 2021, it initiated a procedure to be removed from the London commercial register (Companies House), but the decision to liquidate was suspended thanks to an intervention by the Beirut Bar Association’s prosecution office, represented by former Bar President Melhem Khalaf and lawyers Nasri Diab and Chucri Haddad. The legal action against Savaro was conducted in close collaboration with the Dechert LLP firm, represented by Abou Sleiman. In June 2023, the company was ordered to pay damages to the victims of the explosion.
Spectrum Geo – On July 13, 2022, the Swiss foundation Accountability Now announced legal action taken in Texas, USA, by a group of nine relatives of victims, against the American-Norwegian geophysical services company TGS, owner of the British company Spectrum Geo which chartered the Rhosus, a Moldovan-flagged ship that transported 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate to the port of Beirut. The plaintiffs accuse TGS of entering lucrative but suspicious contracts with the Lebanese Ministry of Energy to transport seismic survey equipment from Lebanon to Jordan aboard the aforementioned ship. They are seeking a compensation of nearly $250 million.
In September 2023, according to a statement released by Accountability Now, “TGS agreed to hand over all relevant documents related to the Rhosus, the explosives, its seismic operations, as well as its relationships with Lebanese politicians, entities, or individuals in Lebanon and abroad connected in any way to the explosion.”
France Trial – Given the presence of French nationals among the victims, including one deceased and 40 injured, the Collective Accidents division of the Paris prosecutor’s office opened an investigation for “involuntary manslaughter and injuries.” Although there have been no developments in this context, there has been an attempt in recent months to create a collective of French victims in Paris, enabling them to act directly in the country and have a “legal” presence, notes Professor Diab.
International Investigation – On July 4, 2022, the NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW) called for the opening of an international investigation. French President Emmanuel Macron’s inaction was criticized, and the head of state was accused of “collusion with the Lebanese ruling class to avoid any internationalization of the investigation.” Internationalizing the investigation would be futile, some legal experts argue, criticizing the lack of cooperation from states following the explosion. “Why have the reports of international experts dispatched to Lebanon from August 5, 2020, never seen the light of day? Why have the requests for judicial cooperation not been honored?” protests Diab. It should be noted that after taking over the case, Judge Bitar sent more than 20 requests for cooperation to various nations. His requests remained unanswered.
The investigation into the Beirut port explosion has become a symbol of the fight for justice and the struggle against impunity in Lebanon. It continues to face obstructive forces in a country where respect for the rule of law and the ability of institutions to withstand political pressure largely determine its future.
