Two months ago I gave a talk at a legal seminar held at Hotel Alexandre and attended by a large number of lawyers. My talk was titled: " The Integrity Crisis and its Effect on the Conditions of Judges and Lawyers". I implored the audience:
"Do not be silent and do not accept silence when it comes to judges and practitioners who lost their integrity. Uncover them and demand their exclusion from the judiciary and the Bar."
(In the preceding months, I had disclosed a number of serious examples of the ongoing crisis of integrity in two successive press conferences.)
A few days ago, a lawyer came to see me and he demanded, in the name of integrity, to act like I have called on others to do, namely to disclose names and details of the examples I gave in my talk in the seminar. He is right; we are under a legal, moral and national duty to uncover evidence of the lack of integrity among public officials. Witness the Constitution (Articles 7 and 20), the Penal Code (Articles 371, 398 and 399), the Code on the Legal profession (Articles 1 and 2), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all religious beliefs.
This is why I called this press conference as a further step in my campaign to uncover and confront the integrity crisis in the constitutional branches of government and especially the judicial branch.
The assignment of positions to judges, their transfer, promotion, and disciplining and the allocation of extra remuneration to them are all under the authority of the executive branch represented by the minister of justice who, in turn, is supported by the council of ministers. The judges have always to be careful not to incur the wrath of the political authority and its immediate or delayed response. In other words, judges are subject to a kind of everlasting intimidation. Furthermore, the political authorities have invented unique additional ways of subjugating judges, and hence litigants and lawyers, such as:
The Never Ending Disciplinary Proceedings
Inspection and discipline within the judicial branch fall under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Inspection Bureau headed by a senior judge, currently Judge Walid Ghomra.
It is an open secret that disciplinary charges have been brought against about fifty judges and remain pending for several years without ever bringing the charged judges to trial, and that scores of other judges have, for years, been subject to disciplinary investigations without either bringing disciplinary charges or closing the inquest. (Translator's note: As of the date of the press conference, the total number of judges in Lebanon was 356). Nevertheless, those same judges continue to exercise their functions as usual, are reassigned regularly, and receive promotions. But they remain threatened and subject to intimidation by the political authorities if they dare to exercise their duties in any way that displeases such authorities. For example a judge who dared recently to embarrass the political authorities in several sensitive files was promptly brought before the disciplinary council based on the account of an informer. The judge was tried and received a reprimand. He is now back to work. Hence there is no excuse to delay or freeze the other referrals, which are mostly older in time.
The Disciplinary Procedures That Never Start
The Judicial Inspection Bureau has shelved hundreds of complaints for judicial indiscretion supported by documentary evidence, which were filed by lawyers against scores of judges. The Bureau should have brought disciplinary charges at least against some of the judges concerned, but alas they enjoy the protection of influential politicians. Under our law several other ways of complaining from judges, such as the petition to exclude, the action to transfer the case to another court for justifiable suspicion, and the action to hold the state liable for the errors of judges are available, but all such complaints are regularly thrown out, and the petitioners fined and ordered to pay unconscionable damages. Thus the judges who commit indiscretions are under a protective umbrella which encourages them to go on doing anything they want, and at the same time to continue to take charge of the actions from which they should have been excluded. The attorneys are thus forced to appear before judges they have no more confidence in their neutrality and integrity, which constitutes a grave violation of the right of defense.
Special Appointments
Regular general reassignments of judges do not mention the special courts, commissions and committees. Judges who are appointed to such bodies (Translator's note: that is in addition to their regular posts!) receive special remuneration, which is not shared by other judges, although the appointees perform the extra work during the same time for which they receive their salaries.
Property Expropriation Committees: There are 37 different known such committees. Special Courts: There are about 20 special property judges and chiefs of property revision committees, and twelve members of special courts on failed banks. Each member of the said courts receives one thousand dollars per month in additional special remuneration. The chief of one such tribunal (Translator's note: which is a court of first instance) was promoted years ago to the court of appeals where he became a division chief, but he did not give up his position on the special court in order not to forfeit his compensation. As a result, the chief of the court of appeals demanded an equal remuneration for himself and two of his associates. This demand was met. This is the way they discriminate among judges.
I attach a schedule of the names of judges who are chiefs or members of the special committees and bodies. It includes 162 positions occupied by 104 judges. The Higher Judicial Council and the ballot counting committees were not taken into account. The remaining judges, 202 in number, do not occupy any additional positions or receive any extra remuneration. Recently the head one of the special committees was removed and replaced by another judge who is closer to the political authority.
There are also some lucky clerks of court who receive several monthly remunerations in addition to their salaries.
Judge Walid Ghomra
Judge Walid Ghomra is the chief of the Judicial Inspection Bureau. Hence he holds the primary responsibility for securing integrity and uncovering corruption within the judicial branch. He is the number one judicial officer in charge of ending corruption and prosecution of the corrupt. Hence Judge Ghomra personally bears the prime responsibility for the never ending disciplinary proceedings and the not starting disciplinary prosecutions, and for the abortion of all the complaint procedures available against judges' indiscretions.
The duties and responsibilities of Judge Ghomra obligate him to remain always above suspicion. Unfortunately, he behaved after his appointment in a way inconsistent with this obligation in the following matter.
One year after his appointment to his present office on July 12, 1995, Judge Ghomra purchased a residential apartment in the Arts et Metiers Quarter from Messrs. Wafik and Samir Khalifeh by virtue of a contract registered on July 19, 1996. Although the registered price amounted to two hundred million Lebanese Pounds, Judge Ghomra did not pay one Lira in transfer taxes and fiscal stamp duties. Since that time, he has not paid any property or municipality taxes.
In order not to pay the said taxes, Judge Ghomra armed himself with a letter he received from the chairman of the Judges Benevolent Fund, Judge Afif Shamseddine (who is also division chief at the Court of Cassation and a member of the higher judicial Council). The letter confirmed that Judge Ghomra had received, on October 17, 1995, i. e. eight months earlier, a residential loan from the Fund, and that Article 11 of the Fund's law exempts the judge from all such taxes.
The substance of the said letter is not correct. Said Article 11 applies only to the Fund itself, and only when the Fund engages in the financing of housing projects in the interest of members. This is the text:
"The Judges' Benevolent Fund shall benefit from the exemptions provided in Article 9 of the housing Law No. 58/65 dated December 8, 1965 as amended by Law No. 31/73. The said exemptions shall apply to all transactions and works in progress for the benefit of members which are wholly or partially financed through a loan by the Fund".
As additional evidence of the meaning of the above, please refer to Law No. 146 dated October 29, 1999, which amended the Fund's statutes and added the phrase " and the members thereof" to the phrase "the Judges' Benevolent Fund" and replaced the phrase " for the benefit of members" with the phrase " for the benefit of both" which includes the members. Following is the new Article 11:
" The Judges' Benevolent Fund and the members thereof shall benefit from the exemptions provided in Article 9 of the housing Law No. 58/65 dated December 8, 1965 (as amended by Law No. 31/73). The said exemptions shall apply to all transactions and works in progress for the benefit of both, i.e. Fund and members, which are wholly or partially financed through a loan by the Fund or a guaranty issued thereby. Furthermore, the Fund and its members shall benefit from the exemptions provided under amended Article 58 of the law on cooperatives put into force by decree No. 17199 dated August 18, 1964, and every other exemption in favor of cooperative associations and benevolent funds."
Moreover, Judge Ghomra did not actually receive a two hundred million Lebanese Pounds loan from the Fund on October 17, 1995 because the Fund was not, at that time, offering such loans and it had no mandate to do that. In the meantime, other judges purchased residential apartments and paid their dues of transfer taxes and fiscal stamp duties and continue to pay all property and municipal taxes like other citizens without obtaining the magic letter from the Fund. The above facts, if substantiated by the attached documents, show that Judge Ghomra did not reach that summit of integrity that is required for a chief of the Judicial Inspection Bureau. I call on him to submit his resignation and to place himself at the disposal of the investigation, which must also include the Judges' Benevolent Fund.
Judge Fawzi Abou Mrad
Judge Abou Mrad is a member of the Constitutional Council (Translator's note: a special high court, which is charged with ruling as to the constitutionality of new legislation). Before that he was retired after serving as the chief Beirut prosecutor from 1992 till his retirement on July 1, 1996. Thus he was in charge of a large number of serious and sensitive files.
Judge Abou Mrad had been appointed as caretaker of the property of a distant relative who had immigrated to Brazil some half a century ago, a Mr. Said Mansour Hashim.
On June 29, 1994, he petitioned the third division of the Mount Lebanon court of fist instance, chaired by Judge Antoine Daher, for authority to sell Lot No 101 Wadi Shahrour which is owned by the absent Mr. Hashim. The Court approved the request after determining that the going price was $25 per sq. meter based on a report by expert Mohamad Suleiman.
On November 23, 1994, Judge Abou Mrad petitioned the court again to authorize him to sell the property to his own daughter. The court so decreed on March 8, 1995. Judge Abou Mrad then sent a trainee judge, Mr. Johny Qazzi, to collect the court decree on his behalf on March 15, 1995. Thus Judge Abou Mrad used an apprentice placed under his care for training to assist him in his unlawful activities.
On March 25, 1995, the chief Beirut prosecutor Judge Abou Mrad executed a transfer of the title of Lot No. 101 Wadi Shahrour from his rightful owner Said Mansour Hashim, an immigrant to Brazil, in favor of the Judge's own daughter May Mantourah Abou Mrad for the consideration of $16,975 which he confessed to have received from her.
The unfortunate immigrant, or his next of kin if is deceased, is unaware of what happened to his property in Lebanon, and that his property is now owned by the daughter of the chief prosecutor who became a member of the Constitutional Council.
These facts indicate that Judge Abou Mrad is not in the summit of integrity necessary for serving on the Constitutional Council. Hence he may not continue to serve on the said council and he should not have been appointed Chief Beirut Prosecutor. I ask him to submit his resignation and place himself, together with the judges who helped him, at the disposal of the investigation.
Judge Ghassan Fawaz
Judge Fawaz was associate Beirut prosecutor from the year 1990. He was very recently reassigned to the appellate court of Mount Lebanon.
A few months ago I was contacted by the German chapter of Amnesty International for assistance in the case of a Lebanese refugee applying for asylum. The refugee had supplied a German court with a document on the letterhead of the Beirut prosecutor certifying that the applicant was being prosecuted for a murder that took place in 1985. The German judge in charge was not convinced that the document was credible. Amnesty asked me to search for further evidence of the crime. One of my associates conducted an extensive search of the records of the Beirut prosecutor's office and all criminal courts. No evidence of the alleged crime or prosecution was found. I advised the German Amnesty chapter of the results and requested the original of the document. It was sent to me by courier.
The document was dated October 31, 1991 and carried the stamp of the prosecutor's office. The signature on it appears to belong to Judge Fawaz. There is no doubt that there was no such prosecution as the document described.
Such a bogus statement constitutes a terrible violation of integrity. Judge Fawaz must suspend himself and fully cooperate with the investigation together with the clerk responsible for preparing the same.
D. Judge Zahi Kinaan
Judge Kinaan has been the chief of the Beirut appellate court division in charge of indictments since the year 1990. He is the only division chief of the appellate court who is still in that position after nearly ten different general reassignments.
Judge Kinaan's position makes him the most powerful judge in the criminal justice system in Beirut. He holds the power of indictment, refusal to indict, arrests and release from arrest. The question is why does Judge Kinaan continue to hold this sensitive post? Why are other judges routinely reassigned and Judge Kinaan is not?
In order to preempt justifiable suspicions, Judge Kinaan must promptly be removed from the chair of the indictment division of the Beirut appellate court.
E. Judge Joseph Shawool
The chief of the Judicial Inspection Bureau is answerable to the minister of justice. Judge Joseph Shawool, formerly head of the Conseil d'Etat, is the current minister of justice. He persists in leaving his old post vacant. He continues to exercise his old duties de facto through his powers as minister of justice. I am one of many who have repeatedly demanded the appointment of a new head of the Conseil, but to no avail.
Minister Shawool is the embodiment of the political responsibility of the government for the conditions and cases I mentioned. Such conditions and cases arose under the prior governments but have not changed under the current one. It could be correctly said that the current government has adhered to the erroneous justice policies of the previous administrations by continuing the same and refusing, through Mr. Shawool, to introduce any change. Hence I ask Mr. Shawool to submit his resignation from the government and from the Conseil d"Etat.
CONCLUSION
I have not disclosed any deep secrets. The story I related is a small fraction of the features of the deficient or absent integrity. The story is well known to the highest-ranking officers of this republic. Some of them maintain total silence about it; others are engaged in covering it up, everyone for his own reasons. Most of them believe that the situation is beyond any hope of recuperation. Such cover-up is indicative of the lack of integrity. This is why I feel compelled to uncover these facts to the public. For if a status of lack of integrity prevails in the judiciary as well as in the executive and the legislature, the Lebanese are no longer able to exercise their civil, human or even material rights, or to defend the same. If such a status prevails inside the judiciary, how can it be possible to fight corruption within the executive or the legislative, or within the public administration and publicly held corporations? And how then will the Lebanese be able to defend their legitimate rights, civil, human or even material?
I take this opportunity to reconfirm my appeal to all my fellow lawyers, whether practitioners, judges, law professors or even students of law: join the movement against all forms of corruption by uncovering all those who lost their integrity and providing evidence to that effect and putting an end to the harm inflicted thereby on the community.
There are weekly meetings in my office at 3:00 PM every Thursday. I hope all lawyers will attend.
I call upon the political authorities:
To put an end to the intimidation of judges and the discrimination among them in positions, assignments and remuneration, commencing from with introducing deep rooted reforms to the structure of the Higher Judicial Council and the Judicial Inspection Bureau, in conformity with the recommendations I put forward many times, most recently in my talk of February 24th, the reopening of redress procedures against judicial indiscretion and lifting the pressure on litigants and practitioners.
To open an investigation on the appropriate level into the facts and documents I disclosed in this press conference. I place my documents at the disposal of the investigation.
I promise you to continue this campaign, and to uncover more facts supported by documentary evidence in the near future.