The judiciary supports the “Bar Association”: “How many mouths” is right!

Lina Fakhruddin-

It was not surprising that the Beirut Court of Appeal (Chamber for Syndicate Cases) approved the decision of the Bar Council regarding restricting the freedom of lawyers to communicate with the media. It is an integrated context at the end of which lies a single conclusion: the mouths of mouths. This context began with Justice Minister Henry Khoury issuing a circular to judges requiring them to refrain from appearing in the media, before the Bar Association followed it up with a circular. And between them are judicial decisions to prosecute a group of lawyers who “sailed” in opening the files of the Governor of the Banque du Liban, Riad Salameh, and his aides, for the offense of slander and defamation, the latest of which was yesterday when the Bar Council agreed to lift the immunity of lawyer Wadih Akl and give permission to pursue him, in the case brought against him by Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati.

It is, then, the political-financial system that attempts to violate freedoms and threaten those who dare to fight them that its “laws” and “sanctions”, which amount to expulsion and imprisonment, will be ambushed. The same penalties do not extend to those suspected of committing the crimes of plundering the state and impoverishing its people, but are limited to the name of those who raise their voice openly about the crimes of the system or those who undermine its control over the foundations of the system.
This “rule” was previously raised in the face of the Appellate Public Prosecutor, Ghada Aoun, who won her “share.” It is remarkable that the decision to shut the mouths of lawyers and dismiss Aoun was issued by the judge himself. Ayman Oweidat. This indicates that the context continues with different episodes, so that the characteristic of submission is the constant among all those who are able to open judicial files for the corrupt. Consequently, the equation that the system wants became clear: silence with consent or silence by force with the blessing of the law!

It is noteworthy that the decision taken by the Court of Appeal was issued by 5 members; 3 judges and two from the Bar Association who previously agreed to the Council’s decision to restrict communication with the media, and for the court to apply the saying “I am the judge and the judge” literally in the face of 12 lawyers who submitted an appeal, in addition to a second appeal that was added to it and submitted by lawyer Nizar Saghieh, who was previously threatened to have his name removed from the list. Bar Association without a decision issued against him yet by the Bar Council.
The seriousness of Oweidat’s decision is that it is final and the amendments approved by the Bar Council have become effective, according to what one of the petitioners, Attorney Hassan Bazzi, explains, pointing out that “lawyers can appeal the decisions of the Bar Council before the Beirut Court of Appeal, whose decision is final and non-discriminatory,” stressing that “ There are legal steps that can be taken, but we have not yet taken the decision that must be taken unanimously between us as a plaintiff.
On the other hand, it is reported that some lawyers are considering filing a lawsuit against the state about the judges’ responsibility for its actions, which invalidates the decision at the time, while the debate rages with this step, especially since some indicate that if the error is proven when suing the state, then the decision could be compensation for the plaintiff. Or accept the annulment of the appeal decision.

The Court of Appeal that issued the decision included two lawyers who had previously agreed to the Bar’s decision

As for the other steps, some lawyers can go to the general body of the Bar Association to request a retraction and approval of the amendments, or to acquiesce in the decision of the Court of Appeal and consider it a “concluded” ruling without having a “hand trick” to change it.

Commenting on the decision, the head of the Beirut Bar Association, Nader Kaspar, held a press conference during which he praised the decision as one of the “major decisions that established important principles in the field of practicing media freedom by fellow lawyers, based on provisions and principles adopted in some of the leading countries in the field of human rights.” He added: «From the beginning, it was not in the mind of the Syndicate Council to restrict freedoms or silence mouths, as some promoted it in the media and tried to make the issue a matter of public opinion, after they failed to market matters before the lawyers who stood as an impenetrable barrier in their face along with their union,” considering that “the goal of the amendment was organizational, arranged by the current circumstances of the frequent media appearances of a few lawyers, contrary to the law and regulations.”