Human Rights Watch revealed that Hezbollah invited the organization’s workers to a “cup of coffee,” after the organization published an investigation into the Beirut port explosion, saying that the investigation of the judicial investigator in the case, Judge Tariq Bitar, is politicized and that “we are politicized.” We will not get to the truth.”

This came in an article published by the researcher, Aya Majzoub, in the newspaper “L’Orient-Le Jour” and republished by the organization in Arabic on its official website, in which she responded to the words of a Hezbollah official who invited her and a female colleague to have a “cup of coffee” after they published an investigation related to the explosion in the port of Beirut. Which took place on August 4, 2020, and he told them: “We will not get to the truth… Focusing on the Beirut explosion is just a distraction.”

The article revealed the details of the session in which Hezbollah officials provided justifications for their belief that Bitar is taking advantage of the Beirut explosion “to achieve political goals, including inciting the president and Hezbollah?”

Here is the full text of the article, which includes the organization’s response at the end:

“We will not get to the truth… Focusing on the Beirut explosion is just a distraction.” This is what a Hezbollah official told me and my colleague when the party invited us for a “cup of coffee” after we published our investigation into the devastating explosion in the port of Beirut. The “distraction” he was referring to was Judge Tariq Bitar’s investigation into the explosion, which was relentlessly attacked, undermined and obstructed by Hezbollah and the rest of the pillars of the corrupt and greedy Lebanese political system.

Protests organized by the Amal Movement and Hezbollah against Bitar’s investigation turned into deadly shootings in Beirut on October 14. Both factions continue to demand the dismissal of Bitar based on unfounded allegations that his investigation is politicized. While it is not yet clear what caused the outbreak of violence, Hezbollah and Amal used the tragic events of that day to further undermine Bitar’s investigation.

The duo blamed Bitar for the violence, accusing him of “igniting tension” in the country, and their supporters posted hashtags on “Twitter” such as “Blood on your neck, Bitar” and “Bitar is playing with fire.” And pro-Hezbollah platforms wrote that “resistance leaders” are waiting “to close the file of insanity led by Tariq al-Bitar.”

All Shiite ministers threatened to resign from the government, prompting Prime Minister Najib Mikati to say he would not hold a cabinet meeting until a “solution” was found for Bitar’s investigation. The first investigative investigator was removed from his post in February after two former ministers he had claimed filed a complaint against him.

While Hezbollah and the Amal movement have been leading the attacks against Bitar recently, the majority of the political system has united in its opposition to him. Two weeks ago, three former prime ministers, Saad Hariri, Tammam Salam and Fouad Siniora, pledged to support an independent judiciary and called for all immunities to be lifted after the bloody clashes, but they (along with Najib Mikati, who was not in office at the time) had previously accused Bitar of “political suspicions.” When former Prime Minister Hassan Diab was summoned for questioning. He also accused the head of the Druze Progressive Socialist Party, Walid Jumblatt, and the leader of the Christian Marada Movement, Suleiman Franjieh Bitar, of politicizing the file. Such baseless accusations only serve to undermine the investigation and increase people’s disappointment in the process.

All the former ministers whom Bitar considered suspects during their interrogation, and they are Youssef Fenianos (Public Works and Transportation, Marada Movement), Ali Hassan Khalil (Finance, Amal Movement), Nihad Al-Mashnouq (Interior, independent) and Ghazi Zuaiter (Public Works and Transportation, Amal Movement) ) They refused to attend the interrogation sessions. The former ministers also filed several lawsuits to disqualify Bitar, some of which seemed to aim only to obstruct the investigation, and the security forces did not implement the arrest warrants issued by Bitar against Fenianos and Khalil.

What are the justifications provided by Hezbollah officials for their belief that Bitar is exploiting the Beirut explosion “to achieve political goals, including inciting the president and Hezbollah?”

First, they accuse Bitar of targeting certain politicians and not others for prosecution, especially allies of Hezbollah. But when the political parties to which the accused politicians belong circulated a petition in parliament to create a special court to try ministers, a move many see as an attempt to undermine Bitar’s investigation, the parties did not specify which other ministers should be investigated.

Moreover, Bitar has largely followed the charges brought by our August investigation into the Beirut explosion, where we released all of our investigation documents for all to see.

The second reason Hezbollah officials question Bitar’s credibility is that he violates the principle of legal immunity for ministers, erroneously claiming that they can only be tried by a special court set up by parliament. Ministers can be prosecuted in this special court if Parliament accuses them of high treason or breach of duty. But the crimes ministers are accused of committing go beyond the ordinary breach of duty and include murder, and since Parliament has not charged these ministers, they are subject to trial before the ordinary judiciary.

The insistence of Hezbollah and other political parties, and even religious figures such as the Mufti of the Republic Abdel Latif Derian and now the Maronite Patriarch Bechara Al-Rai, to sue the ministers in a special court is an apparent attempt to evade accountability. No such special court has been established which requires a two-thirds vote of Parliament.

Many countries grant their politicians a form of immunity from prosecution while in office, but this immunity is supposed to ensure the separation of powers and protect politicians from prosecution on politically motivated charges, not allow politicians to escape prosecution for serious crimes.

Third, Hezbollah officials wondered why Bitar had not yet published the results of his technical investigation into the causes of the explosion so that insurance companies could pay compensation to the affected residents and companies. Former Economy Minister Raoul Nehme submitted a similar request to Judge Bitar in April, asking him to exclude acts of terrorism and war as possible causes of the explosion to expedite the settlement of insurance compensation. But Bitar is legally prohibited from disclosing any part of his investigation before he issues indictments under Article 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

We found no evidence that Bitar was politicizing the investigation into the Beirut explosion. But Hezbollah and the rest of the political establishment escalated the situation by demanding the dismissal of Bitar in an attempt to undermine the investigation. The question is: why? The investigation may have implicated some members of Hezbollah and their allies, as well as individuals from many of the country’s main political parties, but the course of this investigation also has an impact on the future of justice in the country, and for this reason it must continue. Public fair trials of those responsible for the Beirut bombing may be able to shatter the culture of impunity prevailing in Lebanon. More importantly, the success or failure of the investigation will determine whether Lebanon is a country governed by law, a law that applies to senior political and security officials who belong to powerful political parties that were previously untouchable.

The rule of law requires that criminal investigations, prosecutions, and trials be able to proceed without fear or favour, without political or other outside interference, so that the outcome is trials that achieve justice in full view, especially in the most serious violations of the right to life.

Accountability for the Beirut explosion may restore public confidence in an independent judiciary and open space for further prosecutions of senior officials implicated in corruption, financial mismanagement, torture, and other serious crimes.

But Bitar needs help, so we and many other human rights organizations and families of the victims are calling for an independent fact-finding mission to be appointed by the United Nations. The mission can cooperate with the Lebanese judiciary and provide much-needed resources and technical expertise in the investigation. It would also make the price of political interference and intimidation of those fighting for justice very high. Hezbollah officials rejected calls for an international investigation, claiming that the results would be “fabricated.” We ask: What is the alternative? To say that we may never know the truth is completely unacceptable.”