Beirut port disaster remains unsolved five years after deadly blast

Report by Lara El Hachem, English adaptation by Karine Keuchkerian

For five years, the mystery of the ammonium nitrate that exploded at the Beirut port has remained unsolved.

Public opinion remains divided. Some blame Hezbollah for the presence of the ammonium nitrate, with Syria behind it to fight armed groups in its territory. Others accuse former supporters of the Syrian opposition of bringing it in. Between these two theories, some suggest Israel exploited the situation to damage the port.

Administratively, the theory of negligence cannot be ignored: the shipment may have been unloaded carelessly for logistical reasons, leading to its explosion during welding.

Investigations have considered all these scenarios. Judge Tarek Bitar simulated the port fire and sent legal inquiries to several countries. For the first time, he revealed a judicial request sent to Syria after the new regime took power, asking whether any Syrians had admitted to using part of the ammonium nitrate that exploded in Beirut. 

So far, Lebanese authorities have received no response. The judge is also awaiting a reply from the central bank regarding bank transactions linked to companies mentioned in the case.

Sources say the outcome of these inquiries will not delay the indictment, which the investigating judge insists on issuing as quickly as possible—especially after he was cleared by the investigative body of “usurping power,” the charge previously brought against him by Judge Ghassan Oueidat. Because usurping power is a criminal offense, a judge cannot issue an indictment while under investigation for a crime.

Issuing the indictment does not close the case. The public prosecutor must review it, raising the question: will Lebanon’s top prosecutor, Judge Jamal al-Hajjar, who retires in March, take on this politically sensitive case at the end of his career? The file may face political pressure ahead of parliamentary elections, regardless of the outcome, or will responsibility pass to a new judicial term?