Beirut port blast investigation: Why was Michel Aoun’s name included in the Public Prosecution’s submission?f

Report by Lara El Hachem, English adaptation by Karine Keuchkerian

Six years of obstacles did not prevent the investigation into the Beirut port explosion from being completed or the issuance of the Public Prosecution’s submission.

What is surprising is not the issuance of the submission, but its conclusions regarding responsibility.

For the first time, former President Michel Aoun’s name has entered the scope of responsibility after Prosecutor General at the Court of Cassation Mohammad Saab deemed Aoun criminally responsible for his knowledge of the presence of ammonium nitrate, raising the need to determine what measures he took.

Notably, investigating judge Tarek Bitar did not meet with Aoun throughout the years of the investigation, nor did he request to question him even as a witness, while he questioned former prime ministers as well as security and political officials.

Why, then, was Aoun’s name brought into the case at this stage? And why was his name specifically leaked out of the 73 individuals and Lebanese and foreign companies that the Public Prosecution held responsible?

It should be noted that Parliament is the only body authorized to accuse the president of the republic of any crime, whether during or after his term in office. If accused, the president is referred to the Supreme Council for the Trial of Presidents and Ministers.

The leak of Aoun’s name prompted him to file a criminal complaint against an unknown person over alleged offenses including fabricating misleading information, defamation and breaching the confidentiality of the investigation.

However, according to the 263-page submission, the Public Prosecution laid out the facts of the case and identified the powers and responsibilities of politicians, judges and security chiefs before reaching its conclusions on responsibility.

It also sought to answer a number of questions that have remained the subject of debate since the August 4, 2020 explosion: Was what happened an explosion or a deliberate detonation? Was Israel involved? Was the blast caused by a missile? How much ammonium nitrate exploded, and who was involved in bringing it into the country and storing it?

Judge Mohammad Saab also laid out the facts related to the security agencies, including the Lebanese army, customs, and General Security, in chronological order, and examined the responsibility of figures whose names had appeared in the media but who had not been summoned for questioning.

As for the defendants, the Public Prosecution requested that proceedings be dropped against a limited number of them.

The 17 detainees released by Judge Ghassan Oueidat remain a notable omission. Oueidat ordered their release after investigating judge Tarek Bitar had rejected their requests for release, in what was viewed as a response to Bitar’s legal action against him. The Public Prosecution did not address their status.

However, the Public Prosecution’s submission is not binding on the investigating judge.

He will review its contents, but the final decision rests with him. According to LBCI information, he will refrain from taking decisions concerning the 17 detainees released by Oueidat, as well as figures he recently questioned and against whom he had previously delayed taking measures.

After completing this process, he will refer the case to the Judicial Council, with this expected to take place between now and the end of the year.