Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri reaffirmed the determination of the Hezbollah-Amal duo to retain the Finance Ministry in the next government duo, defending what he described as a right granted to the Shia community in the 1989 Taif Agreement.

In an interview with Asas Media, Berri affirmed that this matter was not simply discussed in the Taif deliberations, but was rather completely settled.

This assertion comes as Prime Minister-designate Nawaf Salam works to finalize his ministerial lineup. Salam has voiced his intent to break the sectarian monopoly over key ministerial portfolios, including Finance, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Interior. On Tuesday, Salam stated that “no ministry could be an exclusive right for a confession,” signaling his intent to challenge entrenched sectarian allocations.

In response, Berri reiterated the significance of the Finance Ministry’s allocation to the Shia sect, explaining that "obtaining the finance portfolio is not for the consecration of distribution by thirds or the fourth signature."

"This issue was settled following the Taif Agreement, which is why I hold firmly to it," he said.

The Speaker’s reference to the “fourth signature” underscores the strategic importance of the Finance Ministry in Lebanon’s political system. Governmental decrees must be countersigned by the president of the Republic, the prime minister, and the relevant minister(s). Given the financial implications of most governmental actions, the Finance Ministry’s role ensures the Shia community’s leverage over executive decisions. Without this position, the Shia sect would lack direct control over executive power, which is otherwise limited by the Constitution and customary practices.

Berri’s comments reflect a long-standing interpretation of the Taif Agreement, which reshaped Lebanon’s political framework.

“I was aware of what was agreed upon during the deliberations of the Taif Agreement regarding the allocation of the ministry to the Shia sect. After my election as Speaker of Parliament in October 1992, I dispatched Secretary-General Atef Janbeh to former Speaker Hussein Al-Husseini to obtain the minutes of the Taif Agreement. This was due to the abundance of discussions about it, particularly concerning powers, constitutional provisions, and ambiguities.”

Berri revealed that his efforts to clarify the legislative intent of the Taif Agreement faced resistance.

“Al-Husseini refused my request, citing that the MPs who participated in the deliberations spoke with a boldness that could not be disclosed to the public,” he said.

Efforts to obtain these records from Saudi Arabia, where the agreement was signed, were also unsuccessful, Berri added.

The Speaker recounted a pivotal moment when the Finance Ministry was contested during Rafik Hariri’s first term as prime minister.

“When Rafik Hariri began consultations to form his first government, we agreed that the ministry in question would remain with the Shia sect, as it had been headed by a Shia minister in the previous three governments. I proposed Reda Wahid, and he agreed. Yet, I learned through the media that Hariri had taken the portfolio for himself, appointing Fouad Siniora as Minister of State for Financial Affairs, contrary to our agreement.”

Berri recalled confronting Hariri over the breach.

“He claimed he was unaware that the portfolio had been allocated to the Shia sect during the Taif deliberations. I retorted: ‘You don’t know? Doesn’t Elias Hrawi know? He was there!’”

The disagreement escalated, prompting Syrian mediation.

During a meeting with late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, Berri outlined his position.

“I explained that the newly elected Parliament’s legitimacy was already being challenged and that relinquishing legislative authority to the government at the start of its term would validate accusations against it. President Assad ultimately advised me, ‘Do not give in.’”

As Salam attempts to chart a new course for Lebanon’s governance, Berri’s firm stance highlights the enduring complexities of the country’s sectarian-based political system. With the Finance Ministry at the heart of this debate, the path to government formation appears fraught with tension.