The Lebanese judiciary is grappling with a profound structural crisis, impeding justice for the Beirut Port explosion—the largest non-nuclear blast in history. Political interference, stalled judicial appointments, the exploitation of legal loopholes by implicated individuals, and the Public Prosecution’s opposition to the lead investigator have created an ongoing deadlock.

On January 16, lead investigator Tarek Bitar reignited the legal debate by filing new charges against a group of officials. He has scheduled interrogations throughout February with various individuals, including Beirut Port employees, a former regional director of Beirut Customs, representatives of contracting companies, the acting Customs Director-General, a former Army Intelligence director, and others. According to Nidaa Al-Watan, several defendants plan to boycott the summonses and file new legal challenges against Bitar.

The investigator also intends to summon prominent figures, including former Prime Minister Hassan Diab, ex-ministers Ghazi Zeaiter and Nohad Machnouk, former General Security Chief Abbas Ibrahim, State Security Chief Tony Saliba, and several retired military and judicial officials. Initial investigations suggest their possible involvement in the disaster.

The investigation has faced numerous obstacles, including a two-year ban imposed by the Court of Cassation's prosecutor. This ban, implemented in January 2023 by then-Prosecutor General Ghassan Oueidate, prevented the judicial police from assisting Bitar in executing arrest warrants, delivering notifications, and transmitting essential documents related to the case. Oueidate’s actions were widely seen as retaliatory after Bitar charged him in connection with the explosion. This move resulted in the release of 17 detainees and legal proceedings accusing Bitar of “usurping authority.”

After Oueidate’s retirement in February 2024, his successor, Jamal Hajjar, introduced conditions for cooperation. Hajjar proposed splitting the investigation, limiting Bitar’s authority to cases involving public officials while excluding political figures, magistrates, and military officers. Bitar rejected these conditions, emphasizing that the unity of the case is essential for uncovering the truth.

Judicial sources have revealed that the Public Prosecution firmly opposes any precedent allowing the judicial investigator to prosecute it. This stance aligns with Oueidate’s earlier directive to block cooperation with Bitar.

The investigation is further hindered by lawsuits demanding Bitar’s recusal, which require the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation to convene. The defendants insist on this step, but Bitar has bypassed the requirement since 2023, citing a legal study that supports his authority.

Unable to rely on judicial police, Bitar has turned to civil bailiffs to issue summonses, a legally valid alternative. However, he cannot finalize his indictment without submitting it to the prosecutor’s office for review. For the case to proceed to the Judicial Council, the indictment must be based on a charges list prepared by the Public Prosecution, which plays a critical role in notifying defendants and enforcing arrest warrants.

Amid this judicial turmoil, victims’ families and individuals close to the accused are calling for comprehensive reforms, particularly within the judiciary. They aim to shield the Beirut Port explosion case from “populist” narratives and prevent it from being used as a bargaining tool in government deals to appoint partisan-aligned judicial officials. Such practices, they warn, risk derailing the investigation and denying justice.

The Beirut Port explosion case has become a litmus test for Lebanon’s judiciary, underscoring the urgent need for institutional reform and accountability in a nation striving to recover from one of its darkest tragedies.