Beirut Port Blast: Indictment to be released

The investigation into the Beirut Port explosion is approaching a significant judicial milestone ahead of the start of the new judicial year, after Advocate General at the Court of Cassation Judge Mohammad Saab completed the Public Prosecutor's Office's legal opinion on the merits of the case. The opinion is expected to be submitted on Tuesday to Investigative Judge Tarek Bitar, paving the way for the issuance of the long-awaited indictment.

After a prolonged ordeal of judicial and political challenges aimed at sidelining both the investigating judge and the inquiry into the largest non-nuclear explosion ever to strike a populated city, Nida Al Watan has learned that Bitar, having concluded the investigation, closed the case file, and referred it to the Public Prosecutor's Office, has already completed a draft of the indictment. According to the information obtained, only a matter of days now separates the investigation from the issuance of the indictment, during which Bitar will finalize his draft in light of the Public Prosecutor's Office's legal opinion.

The stage the investigation has now reached carries particular significance, as it moves the case toward what is expected to be a decisive phase that will put an end to arbitrary accusations and fabricated narratives, while providing an official and comprehensive judicial account of what occurred on that tragic day.

Judicial sources following the case praised what they described as the "excellent work" carried out by Investigative Judge Tarek Bitar, noting that his approach was met with exceptional alignment and consistency from the Public Prosecutor's Office at the Court of Cassation.

For their part, legal sources following the case pointed out that neither domestic nor international political actors had expected an investigation of such magnitude to progress along a clear judicial path that could ultimately uncover the truth behind the explosion and identify those allegedly responsible, negligent, or complicit in causing the August 4 blast.

Information obtained by Nida Al Watan regarding the latest phase of the investigation indicates that the legal opinion prepared by Advocate General Judge Mohammad Saab is far from routine. It reportedly contains a comprehensive account of the established facts that led to the explosion, an analysis of those facts, and the conclusions reached by the investigation, including, naturally, a determination of whether the explosion was a deliberate act.

The significance of the opinion extends beyond examining the immediate causes and logistical aspects of the August 4 explosion. It also addresses Lebanon's governing system as a whole, as well as the country's administrative and security structures and the role they played in leading to the catastrophe.

This suggests that the forthcoming indictment will not be limited to naming those formally charged. It is also expected to examine Lebanon's system of governance, administrative failures, and the manner in which those entrusted with public responsibilities handled the duties under their authority. As a result, the scope of responsibility extends to everyone who held an official position during that period, including presidents, ministers, senior military, administrative, and judicial officials, as well as lower-ranking public employees.

Regarding individual liability, the sources suggest that Advocate General Mohammad Saab adopted unified and general legal standards in dealing with the case and the names of senior officials who have been charged. Based on these standards, the legal opinion reportedly presents a clear position, a precise legal assessment, and answers to all the procedural matters on which Investigative Judge Bitar requested the Public Prosecutor's Office's opinion.

One of the key issues addressed concerns the legal measures that may be taken against defendants who appeared before the investigating judge and were subsequently released after questioning without any action being taken against them at the time.

Questions relating to parliamentary and judicial immunities, jurisdiction, and legal authority also occupy a central place in the opinion, particularly regarding judges, members of Parliament, and ministers who have been charged. The Public Prosecutor's Office has likewise set out its position concerning each defendant and the extent of the legal responsibility attributable to those accused of involvement.

The work of the Public Prosecutor's Office also extended to examining the causes that led to the explosion, including tracing the owners of the ammonium nitrate and identifying the true beneficiaries behind its importation into Lebanon and storage in Hangar No. 12. The inquiry also considers whether those ultimately responsible extend beyond the names that have traditionally appeared "on paper" as those who brought the vessel and its cargo to Beirut.

Moreover, the Public Prosecutor's Office did not limit its work to the file referred to it by the investigating judge. Acting in its capacity as the prosecuting authority, it also examined issues that had been widely raised in the media, providing clear legal assessments and answers regarding them. It further addressed individuals whose names had circulated publicly but who were not included among those charged by the investigating judge, with the aim of preventing any future ambiguity or confusion.