For months, even years, the general amnesty project has been bogged down in tedious negotiations. It had been thought that the arrival of President Ahmad el-Chareh in power in Syria and his insistence on handing over Syrian detainees in Lebanese prisons to Syrian authorities would give a serious boost to this issue, knowing that Islamist detainees, both Lebanese and Syrian, make up the largest group of prisoners eligible for this law.
However, as soon as we get to the heart of the matter, conflicts resurface. As is often the case in Lebanon, discussions and stakes quickly take on a confessional tone. In this specific case, there is another issue concerning the army. It was because of the army’s reservations that the Minister of Defense was forced to withdraw from the meeting of the parliamentary committees studying this issue.
It is the day after the liberation of the prisoners that worries the army. This question mainly concerns Islamist detainees and their behavior once released. Sources close to the army believe that its credibility is at stake, at a time when it is being asked to carry out a delicate and essential mission for the country’s future, that of monopolizing weapons and imposing the state’s authority throughout the territory.
In such circumstances, if detainees accused of killing soldiers, or engaging with the army, are released under the amnesty law, some parties may rush to turn them into heroes among their co-religionists, undermining the army’s credibility and motivation. Given the current situation and the tension between different communities, especially in the Sunni community, releasing certain prominent figures could be seen as a great triumph for them. This could trigger communal reflexes and mobilize crowds around slogans destructive towards the army and state institutions. How to avoid such behavior, especially in such a delicate period, while the supporters of these detainees are already planning “festivities” to celebrate their release?
Certainly, this is not the first time an amnesty law has been adopted in Lebanon. There was one in 2005, which allowed the release of the leader of the Lebanese Forces, Samir Geagea. However, at that time, the situation was different. There was local agreement with regional (particularly Saudi) and international coverage to adopt the amnesty law. Furthermore, during his years of detention and after his release, the leader of the Lebanese Forces remained one of the most important Christian figures, with no direct conflict with the army. This is not the case today for some Islamist figures who could be included in the amnesty bill. These individuals were directly involved in the deaths of soldiers and were close to Islamist groups that fought the army in the Anti-Lebanon Mountains in 2016 and 2017. This is why it would be very delicate to proceed with their release at the moment. Among these figures is Sheikh Ahmad el-Assir, who has many supporters in the region of Sa’ada, as well as other Islamist figures in Tripoli. Releasing them would set a precedent that would be frowned upon by soldiers and would discourage them. However, at the same time, if exceptions are made, it would only fuel the appetites of different political parties and ultimately empty the amnesty law of its meaning and content. This is somewhat what is happening today.
Deputies are now faced with this tangle, and each group is now seeking to impose its conditions, whereas initially the goal was to correct an injustice done to numerous detainees, held in prison for various reasons, often without due process. The Speaker of the House has, however, promised that the law will be adopted before the Eid al-Adha feast, and it is now up to him to find a compromise that is fair while preserving the state and its institutions.
