[
The legislative session in the House of Representatives witnessed a political and constitutional debate against the backdrop of the general amnesty law and the failure of Defense Minister Michel Mansi to enter the session to express his position, which prompted a number of representatives and blocs to withdraw, in parallel with differing positions on the content of the law and its consequences.
In this context, a member of the “Loyalty to the Resistance” bloc, MP Ibrahim al-Moussawi, announced the bloc’s withdrawal from the session, explaining that the step came for the same reasons that prompted the representatives of the “Strong Lebanon” bloc to withdraw.
Al-Moussawi said: “No one may prevent a minister from expressing his opinion,” referring to Defense Minister Michel Mansi, who was supposed to present his position regarding the general amnesty law.
The “Strong Lebanon” bloc withdrew from the session in objection to not allowing Manasseh the opportunity to present his position, and the head of the Finance and Budget Committee, MP Ibrahim Kanaan, also withdrew, while MP Simon Abi Ramia considered that “a general amnesty should not be turned into an alternative to justice.”
On the other hand, MP Imad al-Hout presented a different approach to what happened, stressing that “the constitution is above everyone, and President Nabih Berri is the master of the parliament only,” stressing that Prime Minister Nawaf Salam is the one who expresses the government’s position according to the constitution, “and this is what he did.”
Al-Hout added that the ministers agreed among themselves, calling on the media not to turn what happened into a problem. He said: “The Prime Minister expressed the government’s position on the issue of amnesty, and I hope that the media does not create a problem without a problem.”
Regarding the results of the amnesty law, Al-Hout revealed that 79 Islamist detainees out of 146 will be released from prisons, stressing that “from today we will not accept the detention of anyone longer than the legal period of pretrial detention.”
He stressed that “it is unacceptable after today for people to remain detained for a period exceeding the penalty stipulated by the law,” in reference to one of the problems addressed by the law.
In turn, Representative Bilal Abdullah considered that the House of Representatives achieved a “historic achievement” by pardoning a large number of Lebanese, noting that the file bears a “humanitarian and national character.”
On the other hand, Representative Ghazi Zuaiter criticized the law as proposed, saying: “The general amnesty law is unbalanced, and it is a law of exceptions, sectarian and sectarian.”
Zuaiter had also considered, from the point of view of the “Development and Liberation” bloc, that the general amnesty law was “unconstitutional,” in a position that reflects the extent of the parliamentary disagreement that accompanied the discussion of the law.
Representative Ibrahim Al-Moussawi’s positions were not limited to the amnesty file, as he also addressed the media law approved by the House of Representatives, stressing his insistence on working to introduce amendments to it.
Al-Moussawi said: “We are determined to change and amend the media law, and we will take an initiative to collect all appropriate amendments and propose amendments to it that suit everyone,” explaining that he tried hard to postpone voting on the law and return it to the joint committees for further study.
He specifically stopped at Article 104 of the Media Law, noting that it talks about criminalizing those who intentionally spread lies and deception, before confirming his support for abolishing this article.
These positions come after a legislative session that witnessed a wide discussion about the general amnesty law, especially with regard to the groups included in it and the crimes excluded from it, in addition to the issue of detainees who spent long periods in prison without final rulings being issued against them.
The dispute over the Minister of Defense’s speech also opened a parallel discussion about the relationship between the Prime Minister and the ministers within the House of Representatives, and the limits of the minister’s right to attend and speak before the general assembly, an issue that turned into one of the most prominent reasons for the withdrawals witnessed by the session.
