“Lebanon Debate”
Representative Antoine Habashi held a press conference in the House of Representatives in which he discussed the Lebanese University file, especially the issue of announcing the nomination for the position of university president and proposing the law aimed at renewing the term of the current president. He considered that the path taken by this file raises major legal and legislative problems. He spoke of violations in the legal deadlines and an attempt to amend Law 66/2009 in a manner that contradicts its basic philosophy based on the principle of rotation.
Habashi said, “This file mainly deals with the announcement of the nomination for the position of university president, and the proposal of the law aimed at renewing the president’s term,” explaining that he will divide his intervention into three parts: “the legal framework, and the path of legislation within the House of Representatives, in addition to the practical handling and the communications and attempts to pass the file that accompanied it.”
Regarding the legal aspect, Habashi pointed out that “Article 2 of Law No. 66/2009 stipulates that the university president is appointed from among five candidates nominated by the University Council, and is appointed by decree based on a decision by the Council of Ministers,” pointing out that “the law requires respect for specific deadlines, as the nomination must be announced at least two months before the end of the president’s term, while the nomination mechanism is determined by the University Council.”
He explained that “the University Council does not currently exist, although its composition includes the university president and the minister,” based on Resolution No. 2071 issued by the University Council on 6/15/2016, which specifies the nomination mechanism and its stages, from opening the nomination door, through announcing the names of the candidates and objections, all the way to choosing five names and submitting them to the Minister of Education.
Habashi pointed out that the term of the President of the Lebanese University, Professor Bassam Badran, began on 10-13-2021 and ends on 10-12-2026, considering that “according to the approved mechanism, nominations should have been opened no later than 7-12-2026, and this date has been exceeded.”
He added: “If we count the deadlines mentioned in the second, third, and fourth articles of the nomination mechanism, that is, 15 days to submit applications, three days to announce the list, three days to object, and three days to decide on objections, in addition to the meeting of the University Council to select the five candidates two and a half months before the end of the term and submit the list to the minister within two days, then the maximum date should have been 4-7, and we also exceeded this date.”
Habashi stressed that “exceeding these deadlines and not adhering to them constitutes a clear legal violation and a violation of the laws, regulations, and nomination mechanism, which opens the door to appeals,” asking: “Why did the university president not open nominations within the required deadlines?”
Regarding the law proposal aimed at renewing the term of the university president, Habashi said that “the final amendment allowed the university president to run for a second term,” considering that “the essence of the philosophy of Law 66/2009 is based on the principle of rotation, after the previous law allowed for endless renewal.”
He added, “The legislator, based on the proposal of the University Council at the time, enshrined the principle of rotation, and therefore did not allow the university president to renew, nor did he allow the deans and college directors to do so,” considering that “amending the law today is taking place in the absence of the University Council, which is the body that originally proposed this principle.”
Habashi believed that “the proposed amendment concerns the university president alone, without applying the principle of equality in the law between him and the deans and college directors,” adding: “The administrative and legal deadlines have been exceeded, and what is happening is a tailoring of the law exclusively to the university president’s measure, and a disregard for all other laws.”
Habashi responded to those who say that the absence of the university president makes the Minister of Education responsible for the file, considering that this proposition is “incorrect.” He said: “During the era of the current president, he was the one who opened the door for nominations for deans, and opened the door for nominations twice, and therefore what applies to deans applies to the university president.”
Regarding the path of the law proposal within the House of Representatives, Habashi criticized the speed of its referral to the General Assembly, and said: “Any law that carries these major legal problems is supposed to follow its natural path, and pass through the Administration and Justice Committee. There are laws in the Education Committee that were studied for months before moving to the other stages, so how did this law make its way so quickly to the General Assembly?”
He added: “There are sixty-seven representatives proposing a law related to the fate of all expatriates, but it was not included, and this is how matters are managed in the House of Representatives.”
Habashi touched on what he described as “barter attempts,” saying that “there are those who tried to communicate with representatives from different blocs and promote the idea of passing an amnesty law in exchange for passing a law renewing the term of the university president,” stressing that “the amnesty law is not an article for barter. It is a file that has been discussed for years and may not be used to pass a law that is detailed for one person.”
Habashi concluded by stressing that “the criterion must be competence and application of the law,” saying: “If there is a person who meets the required specifications, and from any sect, let his name be put forward according to legal procedures, but the laws cannot be violated for the sake of one person. I am known for my positions, and I am completely against Hezbollah because of what Lebanon has gotten into and what it is doing in Lebanon, but if there is a person who meets the required specifications, to which party he belongs, whether it is from Hezbollah or from outside Hezbollah, and whether it is from the Shiite sect or From any other sect, the criterion must remain competence and application of the law.”
