Marlene Wahba wrote in Al-Jumhuriya: The meeting between the discriminatory public prosecutor, Ghassan Oweidat, and Judge Ghada Aoun did not take more than 5 minutes, during which the latter presented him with a legal study contrary to the decision he took once morest her, and he answered her calmly, that he only demanded the implementation of the law that he says must be stopped. The judge shall refrain from deciding the case submitted before him until the decision is made on the main case before the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation. The meeting ended at this point.
Advertisement
Informed judicial sources stated that the study presented by Aoun includes fallacies and illegal justifications, especially what it included that the general body of the Court of Cassation has not yet been formed, and that the aim is to conduct judicial work and not to stop it, and therefore asking it to stop is contrary to the law, according to her opinion.
On the other hand, the sources of the Public Prosecution Office at the Court of Cassation made it clear to Al-Jumhuriya that Article 751 of the principles of civil trials is clear, and stipulates that it is not permissible to perform any job related to the plaintiff merely to submit a subpoena to litigate the state, regardless of the formation of the public body or not. It is up to her to invoke this matter for the reason indicated above. Noting that Aoun is not a litigant in the case yet, but rather the Lebanese state, and therefore there is no need to inform her.
And the sources added: “We did not stop Judge Aoun from working and we do not prevent her from prosecuting the banks. With the responsibility of the state for the actions of the judges, or in requests to respond to Aoun’s right to legitimate suspicion before the Court of Appeal in Baabda, they must receive an answer. The judge cannot prevent the higher authorities from taking decisions once morest them, by not informing them of the case papers or by claiming that they do not stop examining cases until the claim of “responsibility” is decided.
The sources confirmed that the public body is still present. As for the completion of the appointment of its members or the heads of cassation, the matter is another matter that has nothing to do with Aoun… With regard to the “responsibility” lawsuit, it is not her, Aoun’s, duties to report, but rather she must stop examining cases related to the plaintiff, that is, the presenter. The review, and therefore the cassation public prosecutor did not stop it from the case and did not take a party with any party, whether with it or with the banks. Rather, the higher appellate and cassation bodies must decide, and Aoun, by its behavior, prevents the higher bodies from making a decision.
As for the settlement that is being discussed regarding the files of Aoun and Judge Tariq Al-Bitar, follow-up judicial sources reveal that there is no settlement between these two files, indicating that Bitar, by his own admission, said that he cannot continue in any file following the Public Prosecution’s claim of discrimination once morest him. After that, a judge must be appointed to interrogate him and an indictment panel to consider the case once morest him, i.e. whether the allegation once morest him of usurping power is true or false. The decision, if suspected, shall be attached to the trial, and it shall be prosecuted. But if the decision is issued to prevent the trial once morest him, he is not a usurper of power or a perpetrator of any crime.
On the other hand, informed judicial sources confirm that Bitar’s claim once morest Aweidat is basically false. The allegation cannot be pursued in accordance with legal principles because it is a false allegation, and because the judges’ crimes remain within the jurisdiction of the Cassation Public Prosecution, and Bitar cannot take any action. Discrimination will fight Bitar before the judiciary. While those sources reveal that the solutions currently proposed are not Bitar’s retraction of the lawsuit once morest Oweidat, but rather his “return from the error in the claim.”
