The Constitutional Council has struck down some articles of the general amnesty law. MPs reacted in very different ways.
Some objected that the Council overstepped its powers. Others praised its effort to close loopholes. They said it helped block the release of people accused of corruption.
Objections to the ruling
Some MPs spoke to The Speech and registered their objection. They objected to the appeal itself. They also objected to what they called selective treatment.
In their view, the Council’s role is limited to interpreting laws. Only Parliament can legislate. They called for a serious dialogue between the two institutions. Its aim would be to clear up the constitutional and legal confusion.
Support for the ruling
Other MPs took the opposite view. They said the Council closed key loopholes. Those loopholes would have freed people accused of corruption and embezzling public funds.
They called this a positive step. However, they admitted that one issue caused the biggest dispute: reducing death and life sentences.
A broader problem with institutions
The MPs ended by pointing to a wider problem. In their view, Lebanon’s political parties do not treat institutions well.
They criticized positions built on narrow interests instead of firm principles. They also criticized a common habit. Parties attack institutions whenever a decision clashes with their own agenda.
