Lebanon's struggle with public accountability

Lebanon has an institution tasked with checking whether public administrations follow the law, whether employees carry out their duties, and whether public institutions are operating properly. Yet complaints about administrative delays, irregularities, and poor public services continue to raise questions about the effectiveness of this oversight.

That institution is the Central Inspection (التفتيش المركزي), established in 1959 to monitor public administrations and investigate violations. Its own published reports document hundreds of complaints, inspection files, disciplinary measures, and shortcomings within government institutions. But what have these inspections actually uncovered, and what happens after violations are identified?

What does Central Inspection actually do?

Established under Legislative Decree No. 115 of June 12, 1959, Central Inspection operates within the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. Its responsibilities include monitoring public administrations, public institutions, and municipalities, investigating employees' conduct, identifying administrative problems, and recommending improvements. Its jurisdiction also covers certain public bodies on a financial basis only, including the judiciary and security institutions.

Inspections are conducted through annual programs, exceptional assignments, and specific investigations. The institution has specialized inspectorates covering administrative, financial, educational, engineering, health, social, and agricultural matters. Citizens can also submit complaints concerning public administrations and employees, either directly or through the institution's website.

Central Inspection's work does not end with identifying violations. Its inspectors can propose disciplinary measures, request corrective action, and refer files to other competent authorities. Its board can also issue disciplinary decisions within its legal powers. This makes the institution part of a broader accountability system involving administrative authorities, the Higher Disciplinary Council, the Court of Accounts, and judicial bodies.

What have inspections uncovered?

Central Inspection's latest annual report covers 2022 and 2023 and was published in September 2025. According to the report, its board issued 14 decisions in 2022, including disciplinary measures against 12 employees, five referrals to the Court of Accounts, and 16 recommendations to public administrations. In 2023, the board issued four decisions, including disciplinary action against one employee and a referral to the Higher Disciplinary Council.

The Engineering Inspectorate reported completing 71 files in 2023, including assignments from its annual inspection program, special investigations, administrative requests, and cases carried over from previous years. Its work included examining the Land Registry, the Directorate General of Roads and Buildings, urban planning departments, and the Ministry of Telecommunications. The same report recorded 205 matters handled by the Health, Social and Agricultural Inspectorate in 2023.

Another investigation revealed problems involving public financial records. In April 2022, Central Inspection published findings from a nationwide administrative survey conducted through its IMPACT platform. Among 77 participating public administrations and institutions that had started the relevant accounting section, 65% did not maintain accounting records for materials. Among those maintaining such records, only 37% submitted the corresponding reports to the Court of Accounts.

Central Inspection's 2022 General Inspection Survey also identified shortcomings in government planning and public procurement. Of the 69 public administrations and institutions participating in the strategic planning section, only 28% had approved a strategic plan, while 54% had no strategy available. Separately, among contracts declared by 81 participating institutions, 62% were awarded by mutual consent, compared with just 7% through public tenders. The report also found that 94% of these contracts were not subject to oversight by the Tender Administration.

Are violations followed by action?

More recent decisions show the types of disciplinary measures and recommendations issued by Central Inspection. In April 2025, the board recommended that the Beirut and Mount Lebanon Water Establishment cancel a tender for repairing distribution network faults because it violated the Public Procurement Law. It also instructed its Financial Inspectorate to establish responsibility for the tendering process.

Other decisions concerned individual public employees. In November 2025, the board imposed disciplinary salary deductions on two engineers working in the public works administration. It also delayed the promotion of a telecommunications cashier for 24 months, referred the employee to the Court of Accounts, and recommended that the Ministry of Telecommunications no longer assign the employee duties involving cash or financial management.

In December 2025, Central Inspection referred a property-related file to the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation and recommended that the Ministry of Finance take legal measures concerning property registrations linked to an altered irrevocable power of attorney.

What prevents inspectors from doing their jobs?

Central Inspection's 2022-2023 annual report identifies staff shortages, limited financial resources, administrative strikes, and difficulties coordinating with public institutions among its operational challenges. It states that the number of serving inspectors was considerably below the authorized staffing level, with vacancies increasing through retirement, deaths, and transfers. The institution called for recruitment and an expansion of its authorized workforce.

The report also identifies legal restrictions. Although Central Inspection can investigate municipal employees, its powers do not extend in the same way to elected municipal councils and their decision-making functions. The institution consequently requested legal amendments to extend its oversight to additional bodies responsible for managing public funds, including certain companies in which the state holds a financial interest.

Administrative cooperation has presented another obstacle. A 2017 circular from the Presidency of the Council of Ministers stated that some public administrations failed to respond to Central Inspection's correspondence within the required deadlines, obstructing investigations. It instructed administrations to respond on time and conduct the preliminary investigations required of them before referring matters to Central Inspection.

Employee attendance has also come under scrutiny. In May 2026 , Central Inspection President Judge Georges Attieh reported receiving complaints about public employees arriving late or leaving before the end of their shifts. He called for more frequent field inspections and stricter monitoring of electronic attendance systems. The circular also stressed that inspectors should examine employees' actual productivity, rather than simply checking whether they arrive and leave on time.

Central Inspection's published records show that inspections have uncovered violations across several public administrations, with disciplinary measures taken and recommendations issued in certain cases. However, the records do not provide a complete picture of what happens afterward, including how many recommendations are implemented or how many referred cases result in further action. If violations are identified but their outcomes remain unclear, how can the effectiveness of these inspections be measured?