A missed opportunity to reinforce state sovereignty

The Lebanese government decided on Thursday to postpone a decision on referring Hezbollah’s Dahr al-Baidar explosives case to the Judicial Council, opting instead to allow judicial investigations to continue before determining whether the country’s highest exceptional criminal court should assume jurisdiction.

The decision followed extensive debate during the Council of Ministers meeting after Justice Minister Adel Nassar submitted a draft decree requesting the referral. Rather than ending the debate, the Cabinet’s decision has shifted attention to the broader questions surrounding state authority, public security, and judicial accountability.

Why the government postponed the Judicial Council referral

Following the Cabinet session, the government announced that investigations into the seized explosives would continue “without any restriction or ceiling other than the law,” while postponing consideration of the Justice Ministry’s request to refer the case to the Judicial Council until further progress is made.

Although the referral was not approved, it was not rejected either. Under Lebanese law, the Council of Ministers retains the authority to refer a case to the Judicial Council at any stage of the proceedings should the investigation conclude that the alleged offences constitute crimes affecting state security or public safety.

Under Articles 355 and 356 of Lebanon’s Code of Criminal Procedure, only the Council of Ministers may refer such cases to the Judicial Council. The legal framework also encompasses offences listed in Articles 270 to 336 of the Penal Code concerning crimes against the authority of the state, terrorism, sedition, and offences affecting national unity, in addition to provisions contained in the Law of 11 January 1958 relating to crimes against public security.

The Cabinet discussion also reflected broader political considerations. During the session, Salam reiterated that the state’s monopoly over arms is a constitutional principle rooted in Lebanese law, the 1989 Taif Agreement, UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006), and the government’s ministerial statement as well as the August 2025 and March 2026 decisions. He further stated that storing or transporting weapons outside the framework of Lebanon’s legally authorized security institutions threatens public safety and requires judicial prosecution in accordance with the law.

The discussion created political divisions inside the Cabinet. Ministers affiliated with the Lebanese Forces (LF) objected to postponing the referral and withdrew from the session after the government decided not to immediately transfer the case to the Judicial Council. The Kataeb Party also supported the referral, backing Minister Nassar’s position that the nature of the case required it to be examined by the country’s highest exceptional criminal court.

According to legal researcher Amin Mohamad Bashir, who spoke to The Beiruter, the significance of referral lies primarily in “the nature and seriousness of the alleged crime and its implications for state security.” He explained that the Judicial Council exercises exceptional jurisdiction over cases referred to it by Cabinet decree and that such a decision could strengthen public confidence in the investigation by helping uncover the full circumstances of the case and identifying those responsible, provided the investigation is conducted independently and transparently.

However, Bashir stressed that referral alone does not guarantee justice. “The decisive factor is not the judicial authority itself but the independence of the investigation, the availability of evidence, and the absence of political interference,” he said. While acknowledging that the sensitivity of the case may create legal and political obstacles, he argued that meaningful accountability remains possible if investigators pursue all responsible parties without exception and publicly disclose their findings within the limits permitted by law.

Once a case is referred, the Judicial Council cannot decline jurisdiction on grounds of incompetence.

The most notable crimes examined by the Council

Throughout Lebanon’s modern history, the Judicial Council has been entrusted with many of the country’s most serious political assassinations, terrorist attacks, and security-related crimes.

Among the earliest major political cases referred to the Council was the assassination of Druze leader Kamal Jumblatt in 1977. It later investigated the assassination of President-elect Bachir Gemayel in 1982, eventually issuing death sentences in absentia against Habib Chartouni and Nabil Alam in 2017, thirty-five years after the attack.

The Council also examined the assassination of former Prime Minister (PM) Rashid Karami in 1987, delivering its verdict in 1999, as well as the 1990 assassination of Dany Chamoun and members of his family. In 1994, it handled the bombing of the Sayidat al-Najat Church (Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church) in Zouk Mikael, a case that ultimately resulted in the acquittal of Lebanese Forces (LF) leader Samir Geagea on charges relating to the bombing.

Following the assassination of former PM Rafik Hariri in 2005, the case was initially referred to the Judicial Council before jurisdiction was transferred to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), established in 2007. Other high-profile political assassinations and security cases referred to the Council have included those involving ministers Elie Hobeika and Pierre Gemayel, as well as investigations connected to the assassinations of journalist Samir Kassir, former Communist Party leader George Hawi, and other political figures.

The Council has also examined cases arising from the 2007 Nahr al-Bared conflict between the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and Fatah al-Islam, the 2013 bombings of the al-Taqwa and al-Salam mosques in Tripoli, the 2020 Beirut Port explosion, and the 2021 Akkar Tleil fuel tank explosion.

What is the Judicial Council?

The Judicial Council is Lebanon’s highest exceptional criminal court. Unlike ordinary courts, it has no automatic jurisdiction over criminal cases. Instead, it hears only those cases formally referred to it by Cabinet decree following a proposal from the Minister of Justice.

The Council primarily examines crimes affecting the state’s internal or external security, as well as offences threatening public safety or civil peace. It consists of the First President of the Court of Cassation and four senior judges from the same court, all appointed by decree upon the proposal of the Minister of Justice and with the approval of the Higher Judicial Council. An alternate judge is appointed under the same procedure.

Investigations are conducted by a Judicial Investigator appointed by the Minister of Justice with the approval of the Higher Judicial Council. Unlike ordinary investigating judges, the Judicial Investigator enjoys exceptionally broad powers, including issuing arrest warrants and conducting investigations without requiring requests from the Public Prosecution. Upon completing the investigation, the Judicial Investigator issues an indictment rather than an ordinary accusatory decision.

The Council’s defining characteristic is that its judgments are final. As an exceptional single-instance court, its rulings cannot be appealed through ordinary or extraordinary methods of judicial review.

For supporters of referral, the case represents a broader test of the state’s ability to enforce the 2025 and 2026 governmental decisions concerning the monopoly of arms and the principle that decisions of war and peace must remain exclusively within state institutions. It would have also indicated Hezbollah’s acknowledgment of government decisions regarding the prohibition of its military activities which is why the group rejected the prospect of the case’s referral altogether.

The focus now shifts to the ongoing judicial investigation and whether it ultimately establishes grounds for treating the alleged offences as crimes affecting state security, while highlighting the continued challenge of enforcing Lebanon’s sovereignty through its judicial and security institutions.