It was stated in Asharq Al-Awsat:
The government’s meeting to address the repercussions of judicial decisions related to the banking sector did not yield any decisive results, and the previous decisions taken in the past days remained “under discussion with the judicial references,” while the meeting laid a basis for correcting subsequent judicial decisions, in terms of reviewing the Public Prosecutor of discrimination before the prosecutions were taken. The general public makes any major decisions, pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The government, in an extraordinary meeting, to keep pace with the judicial decisions taken in the past few days, including the placing of the Appeal Public Prosecutor in Mount Lebanon, Judge Ghada Aoun, seizure signals on the assets of six Lebanese banks and the heads of their boards of directors, and implementation decisions against two banks, which sparked a crisis between the judiciary and the banking system. Who announced a warning strike next Monday and Tuesday.
A source accompanying the government meeting confirmed to Asharq Al-Awsat that the meeting “did not produce positive results as expected,” but rather “appeared to be an attempt to vent the congestion so that things would not go to a worse reality.” The source explained that the meeting “did not find a decisive solution to the decisions taken by Judge Ghada Aoun,” noting that the file “still revolves around the search for a sustainable solution to the relationship between the executive authority and the judiciary and the issue of separation and cooperation between them,” noting that the previous decisions that were taken During the past few days, “it is still under discussion with references between the Minister of Justice and judicial references.”
In parallel to the lack of resolution of what happened in the past days, and the presence of “confusion” in the executive authority about the latest developments, the government has developed a framework for understanding about the next stage, according to the source, who explained that “the research revolves around the fact that each prosecutor, according to his powers, conducts the investigations required of him, but He must not take any decision at large levels without referring to the Public Prosecutor of Cassation” who heads, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, all public prosecutions.