The Beirut port blast investigation has entered a critical new phase after the Public Prosecution submitted a 260-page legal brief to judicial investigator Tarek Bitar, setting out its assessment of responsibility for the 2020 disaster and the steps it believes should precede an indictment.

Prosecutor General at the Court of Cassation Mohammad Saab marked the envelope containing the submission with the words “Justice for All” before signing and stamping it and handing it to Bitar.

AFP reported on Wednesday that Saab has requested that former president Michel Aoun be indicted over the 2020 blast, asking Bitar to “press charges against Aoun because he “had prior knowledge of the presence of ammonium nitrate at the port and its danger, without taking the necessary measures” or referring it to the country’s Higher Defense Council.

However, according to Nidaa Al-Watan, Saab's submission notably does not seek to prosecute the former president, despite examining his acknowledged knowledge of the ammonium nitrate stored at the port and whether that knowledge gave rise to responsibility.

According to the report, Saab’s submission goes well beyond commenting on measures taken by Bitar. It lays out a comprehensive account of the blast, examines its possible causes, establishes criteria for determining responsibility and sets out the Public Prosecution’s position on the defendants and the criminal charges against them.

It also identifies steps that, in the prosecution’s view, should be taken before Bitar issues his indictment.

From the shipment to Warehouse 12

The submission traces the 2,750-ton shipment of ammonium nitrate from its country of origin and the parties linked to it, through the vessel Rhosus, its arrival in Beirut and the unloading and storage of the cargo in Warehouse No. 12.

It examines correspondence before and after the material was stored, warnings about its dangers and the political, security, military, judicial and administrative authorities that were informed of its presence.

But the prosecution also sought to answer questions that have remained at the heart of the investigation since its beginning.

It examined whether the full 2,750 tons that arrived in Beirut were still in the warehouse when the blast occurred, whether the entire quantity exploded, and whether any Lebanese party was directly connected to the ammonium nitrate or to its arrival or storage.

It also considered whether the explosion resulted from a chain of negligence and dereliction, or whether a deliberate act, outside intervention or other circumstances contributed to the disaster.

The inquiry extended further to the possibility that foreign parties were connected to the shipment from its origin, along its route to Lebanon or to the explosion itself.

The submission also examined people whose names had been widely circulated in the media but who had never been summoned by Bitar, assessing their actual roles and the limits of their potential responsibility.

The aim, according to the report, was to move those issues away from political and media speculation and assess them against the available facts and legal analysis, rather than use the investigation to settle political scores.

Who knew about the danger?

One of the central criteria adopted by the Public Prosecution was whether an individual or authority knew about the danger and had the power, by virtue of their position, to take or order measures that could have reduced the risk or prevented the disaster but failed to do so.

That approach potentially extends responsibility beyond officials who dealt directly with the ammonium nitrate to political, security, military, judicial and administrative figures.

The prosecution's assessment is based on four questions: What did the official know? When did they know it? What could they have done? And what did they actually do?

Former President Michel Aoun's role was examined within that framework, particularly because he has acknowledged that he knew about the presence of the ammonium nitrate.

That acknowledgment raises questions about what action he took after receiving the information and whether it was proportionate to the danger posed by the material.

Charges are not convictions

A major part of the submission draws a distinction between the standards required to bring charges and those required to send a defendant to trial.

Suspicion or grounds for prosecution do not automatically establish that there is enough evidence to refer a person for trial. The Public Prosecution therefore reexamined the criminal provisions Bitar had relied on in bringing charges, identifying those it supports and those it believes should be amended or corrected.

It also assessed whether the charges were legally consistent with the conduct attributed to each defendant.

According to the information, the prosecution called for proceedings against some defendants to be dropped because the necessary elements for continuing the cases were not present, while recommending that the charges against others be corrected.

The possibility of charging additional people remains open if the available facts and evidence justify doing so. It was not immediately clear whether Saab's submission itself formally named any new defendants.

If new charges are brought, Bitar would have to summon and question those individuals and take the appropriate judicial measures before issuing his indictment.

The jurisdiction dilemma

The most sensitive legal issue addressed in the submission concerns jurisdiction and which judicial body has authority to prosecute different categories of defendants.

The Public Prosecution examined the procedures governing the prosecution of judges as well as the constitutional mechanisms for holding presidents and ministers accountable.

That revives one of the most contentious issues that has complicated the port investigation: where the jurisdiction of the ordinary judiciary ends and that of Lebanon's Supreme Council for the Trial of Presidents and Ministers begins.

The issue is particularly significant in relation to Aoun.

The Public Prosecution and Bitar can examine the facts surrounding his role and determine whether those facts indicate potential responsibility, but neither can replace the constitutional process governing the indictment and trial of a president.

Any responsibility established against Aoun would therefore have to be addressed through parliament, which is responsible for initiating the constitutional process for bringing charges against a president.

The same question applies to former Prime Minister Hassan Diab and former ministers Ali Hassan Khalil, Youssef Fenianos, Nohad Machnouk and Ghazi Zeaiter. They had previously argued that offenses connected to their ministerial functions fell under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Council.

That position raises another question: If the Supreme Council is the competent authority, why has parliament not taken the steps needed to initiate such proceedings?

A wider indictment of the state?

The Public Prosecution's review does not stop at individual defendants.

According to Nidaa Al-Watan, Saab devoted significant attention to the institutional failures that allowed warnings and mistakes to accumulate without decisive intervention.

The submission examines overlapping powers, the distribution of responsibility among state bodies, appointment and recruitment practices and the influence of political loyalties on the functioning of public institutions.

In that sense, the port disaster is presented as a reflection of a broader problem in the Lebanese state: information passed from one agency to another, authority divided among multiple officials and institutions, and responsibility becoming blurred when decisive action is required.

What comes next

Bitar must now complete a series of procedures before issuing his indictment.

If Saab has recommended charges against new individuals, Bitar will have to summon and question them. He may also have to return to defendants he previously questioned but against whom he took no final action, including political figures, security officials, military and judicial figures and administrative personnel.

The measures could range from in-person arrest warrants and other judicial actions to dropping proceedings against defendants where there is insufficient evidence to send them to trial.

The status of people previously detained in connection with the port case and later released by former Prosecutor General Ghassan Oueidat also remains unresolved. According to the available information, Saab's submission did not take an explicit and final position on their cases.

Those issues will therefore remain among the matters Bitar must settle as the investigation moves toward an indictment.