In a landmark move rekindling Lebanon’s fraught politics of accountability, Investigative Judge Jamal Al‑Hajjar has formally requested that Justice Minister Adel Nassar ask Parliament to lift the legislative immunity of former Industry Minister and current MP George Bouchikian, Annahar newspaper reported. The unprecedented step paves the way for criminal proceedings against Bouchikian on allegations of embezzlement, document forgery, and extortion during his tenure in Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s cabinet.

According to the judge’s letter, Bouchikian is accused of misappropriating public funds, falsifying official records, and coercing factory owners into paying bribes or meeting onerous conditions to secure industrial permits. These charges follow a preliminary inquiry by Judge Al‑Hajjar, which included Bouchikian’s appearance as a witness on June 28 and the presentation of testimony from aggrieved businessmen, audio recordings, and internal financial documents indicating suspicious transactions at the Ministry of Industry.

Al‑Hajjar’s petition must now clear a multi‑stage parliamentary process before Bouchikian’s immunity can be officially revoked. Constitutional expert Dr. Jihad Ismail told Annahar that, under Article 91 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the Justice Minister submits a request detailing the alleged offense, its date, location, and a summary of the evidence warranting urgent action. The minister’s dossier is then forwarded to Parliament’s Speaker, who convenes both the Council Bureau and the Administration and Justice Committee in a joint session to examine the request.

According to Article 92, that joint body must issue its recommendation within two weeks. If it fails to report in time, the Speaker must inform the full chamber at the next sitting, and may either grant the committee an extension or bring the matter directly to a vote. Under Article 96, a simple majority of deputies is sufficient to lift immunity.

Dr. Ismail noted that, when reviewing the petition under Article 98, lawmakers must gauge the seriousness of the charges and ensure the motion is not driven by partisan motives designed to obstruct an MP’s legislative duties.

On the question of whether immunity shields ministers from prosecution for actions taken in office, Dr. Ismail pointed to Article 39 of the Constitution, which grants deputies protection for their opinions but does not cover criminal offenses. An MP may be prosecuted, provided Parliament grants permission, unless caught in flagrante delicto or if the Assembly is not in session.

He further clarified that, per Article 72, a minister’s resignation does not bar legal action, equating former and sitting officeholders. This raises the thorny issue of jurisdiction: while Article 80 confers exclusive trial authority to the Supreme Council for the Trial of Presidents and Ministers, prosecutorial and investigative powers reside with Lebanon’s ordinary judiciary once the case leaves the trial phase, except for offenses explicitly designated as “political crimes.”

“The Supreme Council alone presides over the trial itself, but investigations and charges are conducted by the regular courts,” Dr. Ismail said.

He acknowledged ongoing debate in constitutional circles over whether ministers should face the ordinary judiciary or the high tribunal but affirmed that, under Lebanon’s framework, the Council holds exclusive trial jurisdiction.

Parliament has set precedent for lifting immunity in politically sensitive cases: in 1952 for MP Rifaat Kazaoun over the fatal shooting of a journalist; in 1994 for MP Yahya Shams on drug‑trafficking charges; and twice in 1999 against MP Habib Hakim over the Burj Hammoud incinerator scandal, and MP Shahe Barsoumian in the “oil residues” affair.