News: Nicolas Nassif-

When an army commander disagrees with four successive defense ministers, and the fourth of them prevents his visitors from letting their cars into the Yarzeh campus, and asks the deputy speaker of the House of Representatives and two other deputies to enter on foot, and he terminates a contract with a legal advisor who has cooperated with 30 defense ministers in 40 governments and 10 army commanders for 56 years. It is no longer difficult to discover the source of the problem.

It is said about the Army Commander, General Joseph Aoun, that he told his children, after his appointment to his position in 2017, not to forget that their grandfather was a sergeant, and that their house does not exceed an area of ​​120 square meters. What is also known about him is that he preferred to celebrate his son’s wedding outside the country, unlike many of his counterparts, as in other military services, with obscene extravagance, out of respect for the feelings of the Lebanese in their social distress. That is no longer the same today. At best, he is no longer what he was. Recently, there have been many stories: it is said that television stations do not broadcast news that bothers him, lest he deprive them of protection and “thugs” escape to destroy them.

For the former governor of the Bank of Lebanon, Riad Salameh, to say, at the height of the financial collapse, that for two years he had been paying hard currencies to the army at a rate of 1,500 liras to one dollar, including to some officers close to the commander when they were receiving their compensation – including advisors at his side today – while no officers received compensation. Others have this luck. The ruler should also say that he cannot anger the leader, lest he strip the headquarters of the government of its army garrison and let the “thugs” enter it as well, and that there should be a share for him in the appointments of the government’s employees.

Much has been said and continues to be said about the Army Commander, the candidate for the presidency of the republic, among his officers and those close to him. He presents – in what has been going on for months between the Ministry of Defense and the Army Command – an unprecedented negative profile of him, but it raises concern about what might be. He has a leader who becomes president. He acts angry and emotional no matter how he turns and turns.

The army commander has the right, as does any political official in the Lebanese state, to dismiss one of his aides or advisors and terminate an employment contract with him. It is normal and natural for a difference of opinion to arise. When it is not, it has a different meaning.

Finally, Aoun terminated a contract with the defense ministry’s lawyer, former minister Naji al-Bustani, the ministry’s most senior lawyer since 1968.

The dispute between Aoun and Al-Bustani gradually emerged into the open eight months ago. The origin of the Qatari and American aid to the army, which its commander began to include in the category of “private funds” for the army, not “public funds” required to be passed through the Audit Bureau and the budget and public accounting laws. Because it is “private money,” the leader has the right to dispose of it as he wishes without supervision, including without informing the Council of Ministers and obtaining its approval to accept it under the pretext that the donor, like the Qataris, wants to rush its distribution to the military, and does not want it to pass through the Council of Ministers in accordance with the applicable laws. Aoun refused to notify the Council of Ministers of aid and in-kind and cash donations, insisting that they were “private funds.” The ministry’s lawyer’s argument is to avoid any loophole left by Aoun’s presence in his position in the future, in addition to the necessity of respecting established procedures.

When Defense Minister Maurice Slim sent his letter to the Court of Accounts, rejecting the method followed by Aoun, the head of the Court, Judge Mohamed Badran, preferred to distance himself from a clash that he viewed as political in its background (between President Michel Aoun and General Joseph Aoun), by entrusting the Chief Prosecutor in the Court, Judge Fawzi Khamis, Catholic, looking at the book. Fawzi Khamis, brother of retired Brigadier General George Khamis, who did not hesitate to suggest to his brother that the leader’s point of view should prevail. So, on December 19, 2023, four days after extending Aoun’s term in command of the army, the Public Prosecutor issued a decision to “save the file.” What Khamis took is nothing more than an opinion. It is not a decision, and it was not issued by the Bureau. It is neither binding nor decisive for the file unless the Audit Bureau issues a reliable decision.

Khamis’s opinion was numbered 56 on December 19, and was the subject of a legal review submitted by the Minister to the Audit Bureau – which is the authority to be addressed – raising question marks regarding the opinion of the Public Prosecutor presented, adopting the point of view of the army leadership and relying on a single source, the leadership’s book, to justify the Qatari donation to… It is “private funds,” even though Khamis’s opinion speaks of “aid” and not a “gift,” which requires it to be counted in “public funds.” The same applies to American gifts or assistance. The review touched on deals concluded by the Army Commander, numbering 20 consensual agreements amounting to $40 million, including the purchase of Ranger boots for the military as “private funds” to avoid going through the Public Accounting Law, as well as the sale of individual weapons owned by the army as scrap.

After this problem came periodic appointments to military court bodies, creating a new dilemma. According to the last paragraph in Article 1 of the Military Judiciary Law issued on April 13, 1968, “The Minister of National Defense shall be given the same powers vis-à-vis the military courts as are given to the Minister of Justice vis-à-vis the judicial courts in everything that does not contravene the provisions of this law,” while Article 7 says, “The sole military judiciary shall assume responsibility.” Judges from the judiciary staff. However, they can be appointed from law-certified officers at the rank of first lieutenant and above, and if this is not possible, from non-certified officers.” Because the authority was given to him in accordance with Article 1, the Minister of Defense wrote to the Army Commander, who named uncertified officers and insisted on appointing them to military courts only. The appointments were frozen as a result of the commander’s refusal, which forced the minister, three days before the end of last year in order to avoid vacancy in the military courts and after the intervention of the head of the military court, Brigadier General Khalil Jaber, to extend the number of judges appointed in 2023 until next February in order to manage the facility. However, the commander ordered that they be prevented from entering the military court headquarters, which resulted in the disruption of the three military bodies: the Court of Cassation, the Military Court, and the individual judges in the districts.

By consulting Al-Bustani, a dispute arose between him and the army commander. While the first pointed out the violation that results in not realizing the right to suspend military bodies, the second adhered to the names of unlicensed officers close to him and insisted on appointing them despite the minister’s opposition. Failure to realize the right opens the door to the Lebanese state and the retarded judges being sued by the aggrieved party. Prime Minister Najib Mikati intervened with Slim and he did not relent, insisting on his powers and the provisions of the law. As long as there are certified officers, there is no need for non-certified ones from their ranks to appoint them as judges.

In the meeting between Aoun and Al-Bustani, they disagreed again regarding this file after the lawyer stressed the difficulty of passing it, not to mention the restricted authority of the minister. Their meeting occurred on January 22, before Al-Bustani traveled on January 24. In that meeting, the leader finally expressed his position that he could not continue to cooperate with him, and he responded with a similar sentence.

When Al-Bustani was brought to him with a draft to cancel a contract that had begun for the first time in 1968, he appended it with the following phrase before his signature, informing him: “After fifty-odd years of an organic contractual relationship without compensation.” He signed the cancellation of the contract that was revealed two days ago. Naji Al-Bustani was paid one Lebanese pound for his position as a legal advisor.

Between “private funds” and “public funds,” deals worth $40 million

Until 1964, the legal advisor contract was signed only with the Minister of Defense, but included the Army Command. Later, he began signing two separate contracts with the minister and the army commander. Al-Bustani settled in his office in the Ministry of Defense building. He has been the legal advisor to the 30th Minister since 1968 and the legal advisor to the 11th Leader.

In 56 years, Al-Bustani experienced contract termination twice. The first was in 1995, in the midst of the clash between Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and Army Commander General Emile Lahoud. At that time, Hariri refused to issue a decree promoting officers on July 1, which would include the name of Colonel Jamil al-Sayyid and his promotion to brigadier general, along with seven other officers. Al-Sayyed was first assistant to the director of intelligence. Hariri not only rejected the promotion, but also crossed out, contrary to the registration schedule and assets, the name of the master in the promotions decree signed by the army commander. Lahoud became angry and ordered the relevant officers, including the Sayyed, to bear the new rank on their shoulders, despite the issuance of a decree that did not include them. At the same time, they submitted an annulment review before the State Shura Council, which was headed by President Joseph Saul. The annulment review was submitted by Defense Ministry lawyer Naji Al-Bustani. Then Defense Minister Mohsen Dalloul called him and informed him that his contract had been terminated based on “instructions from Abu Bahaa.”

In the few months that followed the review of the revocation of the decree, before the Shura Council’s decision was issued, the problem was resolved. Emile Lahoud, accompanied by Naji Al-Bustani, went to meet the President of the Republic, Elias Hrawi, at the beginning of the new year, in an effort to draw up new decrees that included Mr.’s name, even if it was late. He went through multi-party mediation. The head of the Military Chamber, Brigadier General Mustafa Ibrahim, carried it to Hariri in Qraytem, ​​accompanied by the head of the Beirut office in the Security and Reconnaissance Branch of the Syrian forces, Colonel Rustom Ghazali. Hariri asked for her signature, but he refused. Rustam Ghazali just said to him: “Abu Bahaa, sign.” The teacher (Ghazi Kanaan) wanted this.” Then the matter was settled.

In 1998, with the election of Lahoud as President of the Republic, the contract with Bustani was revived.

The first time, the minister annulled it and the commander kept dealing with him, and the last time the commander annulled it and the minister kept dealing with him.