The general amnesty deports… A representative reveals the behind-the-scenes of the disputes that hindered his approval: “The forces are not innocent”!

“Lebanon Debate”

As the debate continues over the fate of the General Amnesty Law after its deportation following the loss of a quorum in the last legislative session, parliamentary positions continue regarding the reasons that prevented its approval, amidst the exchange of accusations about responsibilities, especially with regard to the amendments that were supposed to be introduced to the law and the mechanism for benefiting from it.

In this context, MP Bilal Al-Hashimi clarifies to “Lebanon Debate” his position on the course of the discussions, stressing that the primary goal was to reach a formula that lifts injustice against the Islamist detainees, and does not leave in place the loopholes that prevent them from benefiting from the general amnesty law, stressing that the accusations directed against him since the beginning of his participation in the sessions discussing the law are “false.”

Al-Hashimi says: “Unfortunately, I have been subjected to false accusations since the beginning of my attendance at sessions discussing the general amnesty law. We are in the parliament, and if someone wants to work on a law, its goal must be to lift injustice. Our biggest example is to reject injustice against Islamists. We want a law to lift injustice from Islamists, not a law to keep them in prisons.”

He explains that “the Sunni representatives who were following this file were few, and we were attending the sessions with President Elias Bou Saab, and following the general amnesty law file over several sessions, and there was discussion at various stages, which led to reaching a draft amnesty law, but we remained with two basic points about which we had a problem, and so we did not vote on it.”

He points out, “When we entered into the issue of abolishing the death penalty, we supported it, and we considered that this was in the interest of Islamist detainees, because abolishing the death penalty leads to converting the sentence to life imprisonment, and life imprisonment in the General Amnesty Law becomes 17 years in prison, but when the death penalty was converted to an aggravated life sentence, this punishment became not included in the schedule of reductions in the Amnesty Law.”

He adds: “On the other hand, there is a paragraph in Article Five of Paragraph (B) that prevents those with these rulings from benefiting from the general amnesty law, specifically in accordance with Law 463, and thus they are deprived of the general amnesty.”

He continues: “We were demanding the deletion of the word ‘aggravating’, the deletion of paragraph (b) of Article Five, and the addition of an explicit text confirming that the law abolishing the death penalty does not prevent benefiting from the general amnesty law, and that the text that is most beneficial to the convict is the one that is applied. This was the demand that we are working on.”

He points out that “the Lebanese Forces thought that they would facilitate matters for us regarding the general amnesty file, and we made contact with all the blocs, because we cannot work alone, and the goal was to reach an agreement on deleting the word “aggravating,” because its presence empties the amnesty law of its content.”

He added: “We entered the legislative session and we believed that things were moving in the right direction, and that simply deleting the word “aggravated” would facilitate the adoption of the general amnesty law, so the death penalty would become 28 years if the person was sentenced to death, and if he was sentenced to life imprisonment, the sentence would become 17 years in prison, thus benefiting a large number of Islamist detainees. However, during the session, it became clear that the forces were committed to keeping the word “aggravated,” and this punishment was new, and therefore the Maintaining it negatively affects the general amnesty law.”

Al-Hashimi continues: “The forces said that we can withdraw the law to abolish the execution and place it after the general amnesty law, but frankly this matter is not in our interest, because we need to abolish the execution. The forces also saw that there was a group of representatives who could vote with us on deleting the word “aggravating,” but they withdrew and broke the quorum for the session.”

He points out, “The problem is that the forces have the freedom to withdraw and disrupt the quorum, but the blame also falls on the Sunni representatives who boycotted. If they had been present, I think we would have succeeded in deleting the word ‘aggravating,’ and we would have finished the general amnesty law. But we see that some considered that disrupting the quorum and ending the session served the situation, unfortunately, because some did not read the law deeply.”

Al-Hashimi reveals, “When we spoke with His Excellency President Nawaf Salam, we were concerned about the issue of aggravated life imprisonment, and in agreement with him we said that this word should be deleted because it affects the general amnesty law. In the conclusion of the meetings with His Excellency President Nawaf Salam, there was agreement on several points, including that aggravated sentences should be replaced with life sentences, that is, life imprisonment and not an aggravated life sentence.”

He adds: “President Nawaf Salam has experience in international courts, and he was aware of the importance of removing this word and its impact on the law. Therefore, when some come and say that the forces saved the general amnesty law, he is wrong, because it was the withdrawal of the forces from the session that led to the disruption of the adoption of the general amnesty law.”

He continues: “If the forces believe that they are protecting the general amnesty, why did they not agree with us on the issue of deleting the word “aggravating”? Some are trying to place the responsibility on another team, but it cannot be said that the Lebanese forces saved the general amnesty. On the contrary, their withdrawal led to the obstruction of its approval.”

Al-Hashimi concludes by saying: “The Sunni representatives who did not attend the session also bear responsibility. Whoever wants to fight the battle must fight it within Parliament, and not through social media sites or statements and declarations. If we want a general amnesty, we cannot ask others to fight the battle in our place and then eliminate it.”