After Geagea’s refusal to appear before the judge.. Lebanon is facing the scenario of swapping the “Al-Moffa” investigations in exchange for “Tayouneh”

Beirut- The intractability is exacerbated by the investigation file into the Tayouneh events in Lebanon, both legally and politically, and many are talking about a looming swap, after the head of the Lebanese Forces Party, Samir Geagea, refused to appear before the army intelligence on Wednesday.

Geagea’s refusal came after he was summoned by the government commissioner to the military court, Judge Fadi Akiki, following the military prosecutor’s claim against 68 people, including 18 detainees.

Geagea linked his summons to political targeting, and Judge Akiki had previously been described as “Hezbollah’s commissioner to the military court.” His defense attorneys filed a lawsuit against the method of notifying him, and considered it illegal. Some of the detainees’ agents also submitted a request to disqualify Akiki from investigating the file.

Legal complications

On October 14, Tayouneh, located between the Shiite-dominated areas of “Shiah” and “Ain al-Remmaneh”, witnessed bloody confrontations that resulted in the killing of 7 and the wounding of dozens of supporters of the Amal Movement and Hezbollah, during a demonstration to demand the dismissal of the judicial investigator. The explosion of Beirut port, Judge Tariq Al-Bitar.

Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah had previously accused the head of the Lebanese Forces party of dragging the country into sedition and civil war. While the “forces” consider that the supporters of the Shiite duo attacked Ain al-Remmaneh with weapons, and that the people defended themselves.

Here, the constitutional expert, Paul Morcos, considers that the request to hear Geagea is tainted by legal circumstances, as Judge Akiki did not clearly specify the character of his summons. Is it as a defendant, suspect or witness, pointing out that the phrase “listened to” has no legal status. What, in his opinion, leaves room for discretion in the judge, and ambiguity with Geagea.

The constitutional expert told Al Jazeera Net that the competent judiciary did not abide by the legal procedures for investigating the detainees, and did not allow the appointment of lawyers to attend the investigations with them to register and document them.

Morcos is reminded of the proposals calling for narrowing the powers of the military court to limit them to military crimes and the soldiers.

After Geagea’s failure to appear before the army intelligence, according to Morcos, Judge Akiki can issue a summons by force and write a search and investigation report against him, then refer him to the military investigative judge who can issue an arrest warrant, “but these procedures, if they occur, are subject to judicial appeal as well. “.

Demonstrations by Hezbollah and the Amal movement in Beirut against Al-Bitar (French)

Forces: the court implements Hezbollah’s agenda

The deputy of the Parliamentary Bloc of the Forces Party, Joseph Ishak, justifies Geagea’s failure to appear, “in the illegal manner in which it was reported.” He told Al Jazeera Net, “The military court’s performance has gone beyond discretion, to implement Hezbollah’s revenge agenda against its opponents, led by the forces.”

The deputy calls for a reference to the surveillance cameras and videos, “which prove that the supporters of Hezbollah and the Amal movement stormed Ain al-Rummaneh, armed to the teeth.”

He asked: “How can the judiciary summon the head of the Forces Party just because its members support the defense of the people of Ain al-Rummaneh, and not summon the officials of the Amal Movement and Hezbollah to attack their supporters against the residents?”

However, writer and political analyst Younes Odeh, who is close to Hezbollah, considers that Geagea’s summons is based on his adoption of what the young men of Ain al-Remmaneh did and putting it in the framework of self-defense, adding that the military investigation is based on the statements and confessions of the detainees. Thus, “Geagea’s failure to attend, on the pretext that the military investigation is politicized and illogical, is an escape from an investigation that is following its legal course.”

Maronite Patriarch Mar Bechara Boutros Al-RahiMaronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros Al-Rahi carried a map of a solution to the crisis (Al-Jazeera)

Political swap?

Analysts point to efforts to conclude a political and judicial settlement, aiming to find a way out between the fate of the judicial investigator, Tariq Al-Bitar, and the file of the military investigations into the Tayouneh events. The government demanded the dismissal of Judge Al-Bitar.

The Maronite Patriarch, Beshara Al-Rahi, presented to the three presidents a map of a solution to the political and judicial crisis, denouncing Geagea’s summoning only.

Meanwhile, Representative Joseph Ishak denied Geagea’s acceptance of the barter at the expense of the investigations into the port file. “Hezbollah is the one who bartered from the moment of the bloodshed to weaken and embarrass Al-Bitar,” he said.

He stressed that the forces are awaiting the indictment of Al-Bitar, and “the pressures will not prevent us from a political confrontation against Hezbollah and its illegal weapons.”

Younis Odeh points out that Hezbollah is awaiting the end of the military investigation into the events of Tayouneh to take its final position, and stresses to Al-Jazeera Net, that the party is not linked to the settlement, “especially since the patriarch’s tour did not include officials from Hezbollah, who will not barter for the blood of the dead.”

He describes the return of the forces’ performance as “politicised”, as it “invests in the Tayouneh incident to expand its political presence, in preparation for the upcoming elections.” While Hezbollah “will move amicably towards the Christian street.”

What are the exits?

Prime Minister Najib Mikati, after his meeting with President Aoun at the Republican Palace, on Wednesday, expressed his hope that the Rahi initiative will see the light of day, for the return of the government’s reunion.

Here, Younis Odeh mentions that the condition for the government to convene for Hezbollah is to stop Judge Al-Bitar and refer the file of prosecuting officials to the Supreme Council for the Trial of Presidents and Ministers.

This council was established by parliament in the nineties and never met. Its composition is described as hybrid because it is composed of judges and deputies, and its convening requires a vote of two-thirds of parliament members.

The writer and political analyst, Daoud Ramal, considers that the criminal investigation into the Tayouneh incident has reached the stage of artificial tension, and the investigation file is surrounded by the explosion of the port, as “it is difficult for Judge Al-Bitar to complete his duties”, despite the fall of the legitimate suspicion cases and the request for a response submitted by each of the former ministers against him.

On the other hand, Ramal points to pressures in the Tayouneh investigation file, and some forces demand that the investigation include only those on the ground, that is, the gunmen who opened fire, without affecting the leaders of the parties to which they belong.

To make this impossible, Ramal points to behind-the-scenes meetings between political and religious references, including Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Patriarch Al-Rahi, “to say that a settlement was produced by understanding with him.”

Ramal finds that Geagea, after raising the slogan “There is no ceiling above the ceiling of the judiciary and the law,” pushed his opponents to score a point against him after he refused to appear before the army intelligence.

The political analyst explained that the settlement pillar is Parliament, to withdraw the paper to prosecute the defendants former ministers from the hands of the judicial investigator – by activating the Supreme Council for the prosecution of presidents and ministers – in return for completing the rest of the investigations.

All that was left for Al-Bitar was to issue the indictment, according to Ramal, so that the file would be in the custody of the Judicial Council, to expedite the task of ending the inventory of the file in the hands of Al-Bitar.

He told Al Jazeera Net that the barter flows in two directions: the biggest beneficiary is the Amal movement and its leader Nabih Berri, and the Forces Party and its leader Samir Geagea, while Hezbollah is the loser, and the most losers are the victims of the Tayouneh confrontations.

Rammal believes that Nasrallah has gone a long way to escalate against the forces and the judicial investigator, and this settlement undermines a large part of his positions, while his ally, the Amal movement, has publicly rushed to discuss political and judicial solutions that will provide protection for Geagea, whom Nasrallah accused of committing the Tayouneh massacre.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *