The decision issued by the Court of Audit in the case of the communications ministers has sparked widespread controversy on both the political and legal levels, not only because of the huge financial fines that exceeded $35 million, but also because of the nature of this decision, its legal limits, and its timing. While the ruling was presented as an important step on the road to recovering public money, there is a serious debate about whether the decision actually falls within the framework of sound administrative accountability, or whether it constitutes a legal slide that lacks basic guarantees and confuses the concepts of “waste” and “corruption.”
Initially, it should be recalled that the case, according to its legal nature, is a purely administrative case and not a criminal one. The Court of Audit is a financial administrative court, and its mission is to monitor how public money is used, and the extent of compliance with laws and regulations in spending, and not a criminal court specialized in corruption crimes such as embezzlement or illicit enrichment. In this context, the decision did not include any accusation of achieving personal gain or transferring public funds to private accounts, but rather focused on what it considered “waste of public funds” resulting from mismanagement or incorrect administrative decisions. The deliberate or unintentional confusion between waste and corruption leads to misleading public opinion and gives the decision an ethical and political dimension that does not accurately reflect its legal content.
The second problem relates to selectivity in treatment. The ruling included ministers from different periods, but the disparity in treatment between them raises justified questions.
In addition, the ruling constitutes a dangerous precedent in terms of holding former ministers personally financially responsible for huge sums in cases related to mismanagement rather than proven corruption. When did administrative errors, or incorrect interpretations, become a reason to demand that the public official pay millions of dollars from his own money after decades? This logic threatens the very idea of taking on public affairs, as it makes any minister or official exposed to unbearable personal financial risks, based on subsequent interpretations or changes in standards. Accountability is necessary, but turning it into a crippling punishment empties it of its meaning and practically leads to qualified people shying away from assuming responsibility.
There is also a fundamental problem in the issue of fair trial guarantees. The objection is not limited to the results, but also includes the methodology used. Were the statements of those concerned listened to sufficiently? Was there a comprehensive audit of the field facts, and the series of successive administrative decisions? Was the full context in which these decisions were taken taken into account? In cases of this size, it is not sufficient to rely on expert reports or written conclusions without a comprehensive confrontation of the facts, especially when significant financial obligations result from them.
With regard to the passage of time, the decision raises an additional legal problem. The cases in question have been known and circulated in the media for more than ten years, which weakens the idea of considering them “hidden crimes” to overcome the passage of time. The use of this concept outside its legal conditions undermines the principle of the stability of legal conditions, and opens the door to selectively reopening old files, which is dangerous in a country that already suffers from a shaken confidence in the judiciary.
As for the essence of the issue, specifically with regard to the cellular sector, it is impossible to ignore the specificity of the legal framework under which the two cellular companies were established in 2004. At that time, the state adopted the Fiducie system to separate the management of the two companies from the restrictions of the Public Accounting Law, with the aim of enabling them to keep pace with rapid technological development. This system was not an individual decision of a particular minister, but rather an option approved by the Council of Ministers, and it continued to be implemented for many years, despite the objection of the Court of Audit itself in previous stages. Holding a minister responsible for an administrative and organizational path approved at the state level lacks fairness and ignores the context that governed the sector’s work.
The same applies to the issue of tenders in lease contracts. The decision criticizes the failure to conduct tenders, while the law that mandated tenders in public sector leases was not issued until 2021. Holding a minister accountable for violating a rule that did not exist at the time the administrative decision was taken constitutes a retroactive application of a legal standard, which contradicts the simplest principles of legal justice.
Question marks increase with the contradiction in assessing “bad faith.” While some ministers were acquitted or the penalty against them was suspended under the pretext of good faith, the intention of other ministers was considered bad without clear evidence or direct evidence. The element of intent in administrative responsibility must be based on established facts, not on general conclusions, otherwise it will turn into a selective tool in the hands of the party that issues the ruling.
Likewise, the decision raises questions about the limits of the Court of Audit’s jurisdiction, especially with regard to convicting private companies or holding them liable for compensation, even though they do not fall directly within the scope of its oversight. The Court’s expansion in interpreting its powers may lead to a dangerous overlap with the jurisdiction of the ordinary judiciary, and create confusion in the judicial system as a whole.
In conclusion, the discussion is not about rejecting the principle of accountability or defending waste, but about defending fair and balanced accountability, which respects the legal and temporal context, adheres to the unity of standards, and ensures the minimum of guarantees. The decision, in its current form, opens the door to a precedent that may be used later in a selective manner, and transforms financial control from a tool of reform into a factor threatening administrative and political stability. From here, the appeal stage before the State Council appears pivotal, not only for the fate of this case, but to determine the limits of financial accountability in the Lebanese system as a whole.
