Ceasefire negotiations between Hezbollah and Israel, spearheaded by Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, have ignited a storm of controversy among political circles, with critics accusing Berri of overstepping constitutional bounds.  

Opposition figures claim that the talks, conducted without presidential authority, violate Lebanon’s Constitution and undermine the role of the State. According to the Lebanese Constitution, negotiations fall under the constitutional mandate of the president or, in the case of a presidential vacuum, the whole cabinet—not the Speaker of Parliament.

Critics argue that Speaker Berri is assuming powers that do not belong to him, bypassing the State and constitutional institutions. The absence of a president, has allowed Berri to dominate political decision-making unchecked. 

Critics further contend that the current talks are effectively between Hezbollah, representing Iran’s interests, and Israel, sidelining Lebanon’s State institutions. The current negotiations have also excluded sovereign groups that have called for adherence to international resolutions, including 1701, 1559, and 1680, which demand disarmament of non-state actors and the exclusive authority of the Lebanese State.  

Former President of Lebanon's State Council, Judge Shukri Sader, clarified that under the Lebanese Constitution, "the president is responsible for negotiating international treaties."

"In the event of a presidential vacancy, these powers are meant to be transferred to the cabinet collectively," Sader told Nidaa Al Watan. "However, with a caretaker government, this process becomes problematic."

He pointed out that the ongoing talks were not between Lebanon and Israel but rather between Israel and Hezbollah, which authorized Berri to negotiate with the U.S. envoy.

"Any agreement reached must still be presented to Parliament for ratification, regardless of its content or rationale," he said.

Drawing comparisons to the 2006 conflict, Sader noted that Lebanon’s government at the time, led by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, was fully empowered to engage in negotiations, which resulted in the adoption of UN Resolution 1701.  

“Today, the situation is entirely different. The caretaker government lacks constitutional authority to negotiate, and Speaker Berri has assumed this role by default,” Sader said, describing the scenario as a “constitutional anomaly." 

"It’s like saying, 'Who gave you this power? I took it because no one stopped me.'"

Maya Zeghrini, a member of the Beirut Bar Association, echoed Sader’s concerns, calling the negotiations “unconstitutional and illegal.”  

“Articles 52 and 65 of the Lebanese Constitution clearly state that the president is responsible for conducting negotiations and signing treaties on behalf of the State. The State alone holds the power to decide on matters of war and peace,” Zeghrini said.  

She argued that Berri is negotiating not on behalf of Lebanon but on behalf of Hezbollah, the group which initiated the conflict, and by extension, Iran.

"These negotiations are unconstitutional, illegal, and not binding on the Lebanese State," Zeghrini asserted. 

She emphasized the need to elect a new president to restore constitutional order, as negotiation powers cannot be transferred to the government or any other body during a presidential vacancy. She also criticized the caretaker government’s limited authority, deeming it incapable of managing the current crisis.