The controversial expansion of the Union of Municipalities of Beirut's Southern Suburbs into the town of Jeita—and potentially all of Keserwan—has sparked widespread concern, especially with fresh revelations of irregularities and secretive dealings. At the heart of this controversy lies a questionable contract for a project awarded under dubious circumstances to an entity with no legal or technical qualifications for such work.

In an apparent effort to secure a lucrative deal, Hezbollah orchestrated an agreement for the construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of the Jeita hydroelectric power station. Caretaker Energy Minister Walid Fayad, in what seemed to be a calculated act of appeasement, awarded the contract to the union through a negotiated agreement, bypassing standard procedures and without informing the Jeita Municipality or its key figures, including former minister Ziad Baroud. Baroud, speaking to Nidaa Al-Watan, revealed that neither the municipality nor other relevant local authorities were consulted or even made aware of the deal.

It remains unclear whether Fayad acted independently or on directives from his political patron, Free Patriotic Movement leader Gebran Bassil. However, the parallels between this case and previous contracts awarded under questionable terms suggest a broader pattern of maneuvering.

Fayad’s actions mirror those of Public Works Minister Ali Hamieh, who has also been accused of awarding contracts directly to the Union of Municipalities of Beirut's Southern Suburbs without legal tenders. These deals include road maintenance projects, which the union then subcontracts to firms affiliated with Hezbollah.

In the case of Jeita power station, Fayad first announced a formal tender—seemingly as a procedural cover—before quietly signing a direct contract with the union. The agreement included provisions for mechanical and electrical work, transformer installation, and general rehabilitation of the power station.

However, the contract falsely asserted that the union possessed the necessary technical expertise. The project’s cost was set at $3.706 million—an inflated figure compared to a competing proposal from the Jeita Municipality, which had outlined a more comprehensive plan at a significantly lower cost.

From a legal standpoint, the Union of Municipalities of Beirut's Southern Suburbs is an administrative entity, not a licensed contractor. Under Legislative Decree 118/1977, such unions are responsible for coordinating efforts among municipalities, not executing large-scale infrastructure projects. Furthermore, Lebanese public procurement laws require that all major contracts be awarded through open and competitive bidding.

By circumventing these legal requirements, the Energy Ministry not only violated transparency and fairness principles but also raised serious concerns about favoritism and mismanagement of public funds.

The most alarming aspect of the deal is the cost disparity between the municipality’s proposal and the awarded contract.

The Jeita Municipality, with technical support from USAID and secured private investors, proposed a fully integrated rehabilitation plan for the hydroelectric plant. Their project included power generation, installation of turbines, transformers, and all necessary equipment, along with full interior and exterior maintenance. The estimated cost: $2.5 million, with a projected energy output of 5.2 GWh annually.

In contrast, the Energy Ministry’s contract with the Union of Municipalities of Beirut's Southern Suburbs is $3.706 million—$1.206 million more than the municipality’s proposal—despite offering a lower energy output.

The decision to exclude the Jeita Municipality from the process, despite its proactive efforts and the availability of a more efficient and cost-effective solution, has raised further suspicions about the motives behind the deal.

Following a public outcry, the Court of Audit stepped in to review the contract. On January 22, the court formally rejected the project, citing:

1. The absence of competitive bidding, which violated procurement laws.
2. The lack of clear contractual terms.
3. The inability of the Union of Municipalities of the Southern Suburbs to execute the required work without an experienced foreign partner.
4. The project falling outside the geographic jurisdiction of the union.

In a unanimous decision, the court’s panel, headed by Judge Bassam Wehbe and including advisors Sanaa Kroum Salman and Fadia Al-Maknazah, ruled that the project failed to meet even the most basic legal and technical standards.

The rejection of the contract by the Court of Audit has temporarily halted the project, but broader questions remain: Was this an isolated attempt by Hezbollah to expand its influence into Keserwan, or part of a larger, undisclosed strategy? How will the government and oversight bodies prevent future violations of public procurement laws?

As these concerns persist, all eyes remain on how Lebanon’s institutions will respond. While the Court of Audit’s ruling is a victory for transparency, the deeper issue of politically motivated municipal overreach remains unresolved.