Lebanon’s Judiciary: A Fragile Step Forward, and the Looming Threat of Entrenched Interference
Just 2% of Lebanese citizens trust their judiciary, a figure plummeting alongside the nation’s economic and political crises. The recently passed Law Regulating the Ordinary Judiciary, while touted as a potential turning point, reveals a stark reality: incremental progress shadowed by persistent vulnerabilities. Adopted on July 31, 2025, and set to take effect in January 2026, the law offers some advancements, but falls critically short of guaranteeing genuine judicial independence – a cornerstone of any functioning democracy.
Positive Strides, But Significant Gaps Remain
The new legislation does mark progress. It expands judicial self-governance, allowing judges greater control over promotions, disciplinary actions, and case assignments. Crucially, it also increases the participation of judges in their own electoral processes, enabling self-nomination for various positions. This move towards greater judicial autonomy is a welcome change, addressing long-standing concerns about external manipulation. The law also acknowledges fundamental rights, protecting judges’ freedom of expression, assembly, and association – though with the caveat of a 48-hour notification requirement for media appearances.
However, these gains are tempered by critical shortcomings. Article 42, granting the government-appointed top public prosecutor the power to halt ongoing investigations, represents a significant setback. This provision effectively allows political interference in sensitive cases, undermining the principle of impartial justice. As Human Rights Watch rightly points out, this power grants the prosecutor excessive influence and the potential to shield powerful individuals from accountability.
The Supreme Judicial Council: A Battleground for Control
The composition of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), Lebanon’s highest judicial body, remains a key point of contention. While the law introduces a degree of judicial representation – four of the ten members will now be elected by judges – the government retains significant control with four appointments. This falls short of the recommendations from the Venice Commission, which advocated for a judiciary-elected majority. The amended composition, as reported by Legal Agenda, demonstrates a clear prioritization of executive influence over genuine judicial independence.
Furthermore, the law’s requirement for seven out of ten SJC members to approve judicial appointments over government objections creates a high hurdle for overcoming political gridlock. This effectively gives the executive branch a veto power, hindering the SJC’s ability to ensure a truly independent judiciary.
A Troubled Legislative Process Undermines Legitimacy
The manner in which the law was passed raises serious concerns about its legitimacy. Reports surfaced of last-minute amendments introduced without adequate review by parliamentarians, and a chaotic vote tallying process. MP Halimeh Kaakour publicly stated on social media that the law was effectively approved without proper discussion or voting, casting a shadow over the entire process. This lack of transparency and due process further erodes public trust in the judiciary and the political system as a whole.
Looking Ahead: The Risk of Entrenched Interference and the Path to Genuine Reform
The passage of this law isn’t an end, but a precarious beginning. The existing vulnerabilities – particularly Article 42 and the composition of the SJC – create ample opportunities for continued political interference. Without further amendments, Lebanon risks solidifying a system where the judiciary remains susceptible to manipulation, hindering its ability to deliver justice and uphold the rule of law.
The situation in Lebanon isn’t unique. Across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, judicial independence is under threat, often facing similar challenges of executive overreach and political influence. A 2023 report by the International Commission of Jurists details the systemic challenges facing judiciaries in the region, highlighting the need for comprehensive reforms. International Commission of Jurists – MENA
To truly safeguard judicial independence, Lebanon must prioritize several key steps. Amending Article 42 to remove the prosecutor’s power to halt investigations is paramount. Increasing judicial representation on the SJC, aligning with the Venice Commission’s recommendations, is equally crucial. Furthermore, addressing the issue of civilians being tried in military courts – a practice often used to suppress dissent – is essential for protecting fundamental rights.
The fight for an independent judiciary in Lebanon is far from over. The current law represents a small step forward, but sustained pressure from civil society, legal professionals, and the international community will be vital to ensure that Lebanon’s judiciary can finally operate free from political interference and deliver justice for all its citizens. What further reforms do you believe are most critical for Lebanon’s judicial system? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
