Minister Slim Firmly Rejects Law Violation: Defying Pressure for...

3^min

The Media Office of Caretaker Minister of Defense Maurice Slim considered that "despite the delicate circumstances in Lebanon and the increasing concern due to Israeli attacks in the south and the repercussions of the war in Gaza, well-known parties find time to renew campaigns against the Minister of National Defense, as if everything happening is in one scale and the Minister is in the other, or rather, putting more pressure on officers in the military judiciary not to implement decisions issued by the authority entrusted with issuing them, addressing the justice component in the military judiciary."

Minister of National Defense affirmed in a statement that "the decisions to appoint officers in the military court, as well as the extension of work until 29/2/2024, related to the Military Cassation Court and the military single judiciary for the year 2023, have been issued according to the rules and have been circulated to all main institutions and relevant bodies. However, these officers were prevented from carrying out their judicial duties, which implies refraining from upholding justice and preventing the administration of justice in the military judiciary."

He pointed out that "the Minister's refusal to sign decisions to appoint officers in the Military Cassation Court and the military single judiciary is because the proposed appointees do not hold a law degree, which contradicts legal texts on this matter and deprives the legal concept of those who assume judicial duties."

He emphasized that if the Minister of National Defense is expected to violate the law, this will not happen, no matter how intense the pressures, blackmail campaigns, defamation, and incitement in the media and non-media are. It is up to those in positions of responsibility, especially those in positions of authority, to exert pressure in the right direction, which is to compel those who violate decisions made in accordance with the law to comply with them. This is especially true after preventing officers from carrying out their judicial duties in military courts, bypassing the implications of refraining from upholding justice and obstructing the justice facility in the military judiciary.