In the midst of the heated debate between the judiciary and some media outlets, matters took a clear political turn with MP Bilal Abdullah, a member of the “Democratic Gathering” bloc, entering the crisis line, defending the discriminatory Public Prosecutor, Judge Jamal Al-Hajjar, in the face of the criticism that recently targeted him.
Abdullah expressed his opinion in a post on the “X” platform, saying: “We reject any attack on a national and judicial figure represented by Judge Jamal Al-Hajjar, who is known for his integrity, wisdom, firmness, and nobility,” stressing that these advantages “qualified him for the position of public prosecutor after an honorable career in many judicial positions.” He added that Al-Hajjar “is the son of a town and region that has nourished and continues to nourish the nation with the best men and competencies,” and he concluded his post by saying: “You got the title wrong this time!”
This position comes in the context of the escalating dispute over Al-Hajjar’s decision to preserve the information submitted by the Electricité du Liban against the Director General of the Middle East Power Company (MEP), Karim Tahseen Al-Khayyat, after investigations that continued for several months. This decision angered MTV and the newspaper “Nidaa al-Watan” due to previous disputes between Michel Murr and the Khayyat family, which prompted them to launch an attack on Al-Hajjar.
Against this background, Al-Hajjar filed a lawsuit against the Chairman of the Board of Directors of MTV, Michel Murr, and the managing editor of “Nidaa Al-Watan” newspaper, Amjad Iskandar, and the file was referred to the Information Branch to follow up on legal procedures.
It should be noted that MTV channel and “Nidaa Al Watan” newspaper intensified their criticism of Al-Hajjar following his decision, which led to a direct confrontation between the judiciary and some media outlets, while the Supreme Judicial Council stressed the necessity of respecting the judiciary and adhering to legal principles in dealing with its decisions.
In general, this controversy reveals escalating tension between the judiciary and the media, with political forces intervening in defense, which indicates the possibility of the scope of the dispute expanding to include dimensions that go beyond a mere dispute over a judicial decision.
