Lebanese municipal elections postponement faces legal challenges and constitutional concerns

Attention in Lebanon is turning towards next week, specifically Tuesday, which is expected to witness two sessions for the government and the Parliament. It is almost certain that Parliament will postpone the municipal and selective elections and extend the local councils' terms between four months and a year. Meanwhile, the government is supposed to discuss covering the expenses of these elections, which will become futile.

With both the "Lebanese Forces" party and the "Lebanese Kataeb" party insisting on rejecting legislation during the presidential vacuum and therefore abstaining from attending the extension session, it is likely that the "Free Patriotic Movement" will provide constitutional cover for it. 

This article was originally published in, translated from Lebanese newspaper Asharq al-Awsat.     

It is worth noting that the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, who is a member of the "Movement," Elias Bou Saab, has previously announced his intention to propose a law to extend the terms of the municipal and selective councils by four months, admitting that holding them at the present time has become almost impossible.

While everyone is now dealing with the fact that the municipal elections have effectively been postponed, which is what most parliamentary blocs are directly and indirectly seeking, this postponement, if it occurs, will be subject to challenge before the Constitutional Council, according to legal experts. They argue that the Parliament is an electoral body and not a legislative one during the presidential vacuum, as pointed out by the head of the "Lebanese Forces" party, Samir Geagea, confirming that the extension of the municipal councils is unconstitutional and referring to a "well-disguised cheating process."

Former Minister and former President of the North Lawyers Syndicate, Rashid Derbas, and legal and constitutional expert Saeed Malik, agree that the extension is subject to challenge. They note that there is a similar precedent recorded in 1997 when the Constitutional Council challenged the law postponing the municipal elections.

Derbas tells "Asharq Al-Awsat": "There are two points that could form a reason for the challenge; the first is that the council is an electoral body, although this issue may be subject to disagreement in opinion. As for the second point, postponing the elections can happen for urgent, unexpected, and unavoidable reasons. Therefore, if the elections are postponed, the question is: where is the critical situation that led to the postponement? Especially since funding is available and the Parliament, which could convene to postpone, could also convene to approve the appropriations. Moreover, the government can resort to special withdrawal appropriations." 

Derbas points out that "regardless of what the Constitutional Council's ruling might be, in my opinion, these two points constitute strong reasons that could expose the law to challenge."

For his part, constitutional and legal expert Saeed Malik clarifies this issue by telling "Asharq Al-Awsat": "It is established that if the extension law is issued, it will be subject to challenge before the Constitutional Council for two reasons: the first one is that it is issued by an electoral body and not a legislative one, as the current Parliament is an electoral body, not a legislative one, in accordance with Articles 74 and 75 of the Constitution. Consequently, the issuance of the extension law would have taken place in an illegal session, and any session held by the Parliament outside the specified dates, in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 of the Constitution, is void, meaning that any law issued as a result of this session is considered void."

The second reason, according to Malik, is that "in case of the issuance of such a law, it would undermine the principle of the rotation of power, which has constitutional value, in addition to the principle of the limited agency of citizens to municipal councils and limiting it to a specific period. Therefore, extending this period is considered a constitutional violation that could lead to challenging the extension."