Five years after the devastating explosion at Beirut Port, its investigation remains mired in political intrigue, judicial paralysis, and foreign interference – raising questions about whether truth or electoral politics will triumph.
The Cradle
Instead, it has been hijacked by political calculations, judicial sabotage, and foreign meddling, turning what should have been a quest for truth into yet another symbol of Lebanon's institutional collapse.
In the five years since that catastrophic day, not a single individual has been held accountable. The judicial process, which should have sought truth with impartiality and urgency, has instead been mired in legal obstruction, factional conflict, and foreign pressures.
What began as a criminal investigation now more closely resembles a battlefield – one where Lebanon's fractured institutions, especially its judiciary, have become proxies in a larger political war.
This scenario is similar to what unfolded following the assassination of Rafiq Hariri on 14 February 2005, when the case was recorded and politicized, culminating in the establishment of an international tribunal. The UN Security Council-initiated Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) was heavily influenced by the US – a factor that ultimately diluted the proceedings of the investigation and prevented an objective resolution.
Political agendas take priority over justice
This month, the Beirut Port probe has once again been thrown into limbo. The Lebanese Indictment Chamber is reviewing a lawsuit against lead investigator Judge Tarek Bitar, accusing him of “usurping authority,” a move that could either allow the probe to inch forward or collapse entirely under political sabotage.
The chamber, formed in April under Judge Elias Eid and including Judges Rabih Hassameh and Pierre Francis, was tasked with ruling on a complaint filed by former public prosecutor Ghassan Oueidat. Oueidat accused Bitar of “impersonating a judicial investigator,” escalating a dispute that has simmered for over two years as Bitar pushed forward with investigations against senior political and security officials.
Sources close to the proceedings inform The Cradle that the chamber is far from united. While some judges appear to support Oueidat's challenge, others reportedly question the legal validity of his claim. The absence of consensus signals that the judicial path forward remains unstable, especially under the weight of escalating public and political pressure.
Two outcomes now dominate the legal horizon. If the chamber accepts Oueidat’s appeal, the case would be transferred to Judge Habib Rizkallah, who holds the authority to either freeze the complaint or summon Bitar for questioning and potentially issue a formal indictment against him.
If the chamber rejects the appeal, the case reverts to the current public prosecutor, Judge Jamal Hajjar, who would be tasked with amending the complaint. Legal observers believe that if the intent is to shield the investigation from further obstruction, Hajjar may shelve the case altogether.
Political sources disclose to The Cradle that no indictment is expected before 2026, conveniently just ahead of Lebanon’s next parliamentary elections. Rather than delivering justice, the case risks being weaponized to shape electoral narratives, with growing speculation that the Lebanese resistance, Hezbollah, will be singled out over the shipment and storage of ammonium nitrate at the port.
Any reference to possible Israeli involvement, meanwhile, has been carefully avoided to protect Tel Aviv from international litigation, a priority clearly shared by the western states backing this judicial farce.
Retaliation, paralysis, and foreign silence
Yet, despite a tidal wave of opposition, Bitar has continued his pursuit of the case. Over recent months, he has interrogated scores of political, military, and judicial figures, but the resistance he has faced is extraordinary: 43 lawsuits have been filed to remove or disqualify him.
In January 2023, he defied these legal challenges, asserting that a judicial investigator cannot be dismissed by other judges, and issued new charges against senior judicial officials, including Oueidat himself.
This defiance was swiftly met with institutional retaliation. Oueidat responded with his own criminal complaint against Bitar, secured a travel ban on him, and ordered the release of 17 detainees the judge had refused to free. The investigation, once again, collapsed into paralysis.
Adding another layer of complexity, Bitar’s efforts to obtain international cooperation have also stalled. Judicial assistance requests sent to six Arab and European countries remain unanswered, despite Justice Minister Henri Khoury’s direct lobbying of foreign diplomats. The silence of these states suggests that Lebanon’s legal sovereignty ends where foreign interests begin.
A judiciary in crisis, public trust in freefall
The decision to release 17 detainees suspected of involvement in the port blast has only further disillusioned the Lebanese public. For the families of the victims, the release signaled either that these individuals were wrongly incarcerated for years or that they were released due to political pressure – neither of which restores confidence in a judiciary already seen as fractured and partisan.
This fracture runs deep within Lebanon’s legal apparatus. Judges are now openly split: Some back Bitar as a rare symbol of judicial independence, while others accuse him of procedural overreach. A third camp remains silent, perhaps wary of being drawn into a political quagmire. What is clear, however, is that the judiciary has ceased to function as a neutral institution. It has become both an arena and a casualty of Lebanon’s sectarian political order.
International actors are far from impartial observers in this drama. The Beirut Port case has become a useful lever for foreign governments eager to pressure the Lebanese state, contain Hezbollah, and influence the country’s political trajectory.
While many credible theories exist about the explosion’s causes, including a possible Israeli aerial strike, western-backed narratives have sought to focus attention exclusively on Hezbollah, aligning with their broader regional and global agendas.
Justice delayed, future in question
The question is not simply whether justice will be served. It is whether the case will be used to manipulate Lebanese public opinion ahead of elections, whether victims’ pain will be weaponized for political gain, and whether a broken system can ever deliver accountability.
The Beirut Port explosion should have been a national reckoning. Instead, it has become a bargaining chip in backroom deals, a pretext for sectarian blame games, and a tool of foreign interference. The wreckage of that blast remains visible not only in the ruins of the port but in the institutions tasked with investigating it.
With 2026 drawing near, talk of an imminent indictment has resurfaced – not in the name of justice, but in service of electoral maneuvering. If it comes, it is likely to mirror a pre-written script, used to shape the political arena rather than reveal the facts of what unfolded at the port.
The real question is whether a state that cannot – or will not – reveal the culprits behind one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history can ever claim to rebuild. More than a crime scene, the port may well stand as a mass grave for the Lebanese republic itself, buried in the rubble of its own institutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment