Recently, two negative developments have occurred in judicial affairs.

The first is the now overt pressure that Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri is exerting to force the appointment of a judge loyal to him to replace Financial Public Prosecutor Ali Ibrahim, following the logic of sectarian quota-sharing.

The second is a shift in Administration and Justice Committee President Georges Adwan’s stance. Specifically, during the committee session held on June 10, he announced his refusal to debate the bill regulating the judicial judiciary that was drafted by the government. Instead, he insists on sticking with the bill that the committee approved in 2023, which formed the basis of the government’s bill. This shift came after Adwan, on May 2, openly welcomed the government’s bill and committed to ensuring that the debate on it would be completed within a short timeframe. Most importantly, he had officially placed the bill on the committee’s agenda for the aforementioned session.

Hence, the Independence of the Judiciary Coalition (IJC) would like to make the following observations:

First: Continuing to Earmark Judicial Positions for Specific Sects Means Continuing to Violate the Constitution

Article 95 of the Constitution stipulates that no position may be earmarked for any sect. Hence, continuing to treat important judicial positions as prerogatives of particular sects constitutes a persistent violation of the Constitution, as well as a departure from the new president’s inauguration speech and the government’s policy statement, both of which emphasized adopting the principle of rotation. Moreover, such earmarking constitutes the most effective tool for turning public institutions into political fiefdoms, contrary to the principles of impartiality and competence. Of course, this observation applies to all current and pending appointments.

Second: Political Control over the Financial Public Prosecution Shields Financial Crimes and Perpetuates the Squandering of Public Funds

The Financial Public Prosecution has the jurisdiction to prosecute all crimes of corruption and abuse of public funds. Hence, insisting on appointing a judge loyal to the political authority or the banking lobby to this office will shield these crimes and, by extension, the squandering of public funds. This approach, we fear, is a continuation of the approach that was employed over the past decades – an approach that led to the state’s bankruptcy and the impoverishment of society in one of the greatest acts of plunder to have occurred worldwide.

Third: Cooperation Among the Powers Must Be Prioritized over Practices of Obstruction, Competition, and Politicization

The withdrawal of the bill regulating the judicial judiciary from the committee’s agenda constitutes a breach of the constitutional principle of cooperation and balance among the powers of the state. This breach is especially egregious because it obstructs a pivotal reform promised in the inauguration speech and the government’s policy statement (based on which the government was granted confidence) and takes the judicial reform issue backward. The Administration and Justice Committee seems to be working to thwart the government’s efforts to implement its policy statement after it won confidence on the basis of it.

Additionally, this breach constitutes a blatant violation of Article 35 of Parliament’s Internal Statute, which requires the committees to debate the bills referred to them in the order they are received.

Hence, the IJC makes the following demands:

1. We call upon the Ministry of Justice to establish, in full coordination with the Supreme Judicial Council, a mechanism that allows judges to apply and compete for the position of financial public prosecutor free of any discrimination based on sect or gender, one that ensures that the successful candidate is chosen based exclusively on competence and commitment to impartiality and independence.

1. We call upon the Supreme Judicial Council to establish a mechanism for judges to apply and compete for all important judicial positions based on the same criteria.

We call upon the president of the Administration and Justice Committee to commit to debate the government’s bill via a mechanism that ensures its completion within the one-month timeframe stipulated by Article 38 of Parliament’s Internal Statute. This should be done in accordance with the constitutional principle of complementarity and cooperation with the government and the Supreme Judicial Council and with reference to the comments that the IJC previously published.