The political debate in Lebanon over the general amnesty law and the file of Islamist detainees entered a new phase, following the Free Patriotic Movement’s response to MP Major General Ashraf Rifi. The movement stressed its refusal to turn the challenge to the law into a “problem with the Sunni sect,” stressing that its objection is based on the expansion of the scope of the amnesty and not on justice for the detainees who were subjected to injustice.
The movement explained, in its statement addressed to Rifi, that its reservations are not directed against “justifying the oppressed Islamist detainees,” but rather at exploiting their case to pass “a broad amnesty that includes about 5,800 people who committed multiple crimes,” while the number of Islamic convicts included does not exceed about 250 people, according to its numbers. He stressed that his position is based on addressing the conditions of those who have been detained for a long time without trial, complaining about “their case being used to justify a comprehensive amnesty,” and noting that he submitted a draft law in this regard in 2005.
In its response to Rifi’s indication that the military court is not affiliated with the Ministry of Justice, the movement saw that this clarification does not answer questions about what Rifi did while assuming the portfolio of justice to address the file. He pointed to the gathering of the families of the detained Islamists in front of a rural house in 2016 to demand the acceleration of the trials of their sons, considering that the situation at that time required a successful political and judicial initiative.
The statement also touched on Rifi’s previous resignation from the government, indicating that the resignation statement focused on issues such as Hezbollah, the Michel Samaha file, the disruption of institutions, and the relationship with Saudi Arabia, adding that “the confrontation is not measured only by the decision to resign, but rather by what the official does when the authority and responsibility are in his hands.”
The “Free Patriotic Movement” concluded its call to keep the discussion on the essence of the issue, stressing that it stands “in favor of justice for the oppressed, and against amnesty for the criminal,” in addition to supporting the right of every detainee to a fair trial in parallel with the right of the army and the families of its martyrs and victims to achieve justice.
This debate comes as an escalation of the existing dispute against the backdrop of the appeal submitted by representatives affiliated with the movement before the Constitutional Council against the general amnesty law. Rifi had accused the leader of the movement, MP Gebran Bassil, of trying to evade obstructing the law, and MP Jimmy Jabour responded by calling for waiting for the decision of the Constitutional Council, stressing the need for any treatment of the detainees’ file to balance their rights and the feelings of the families of the martyrs of the military establishment.
