Representative Jamil Al-Sayyid wrote, in a post on his account on the “X” platform, commenting on the speech of Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nabih Berri, on the anniversary of the absence of Imam Musa Al-Sadr and his two companions, considering that Berri’s positions need actual translation within the House of Representatives so that they do not remain “ink on the air.”
Al-Sayyid said that Berri stressed the prohibition of exclusivity in sovereign titles, most notably the rejection of the framework agreement and its secret annex and the experimental areas in the south, and the refusal to abandon UNIFIL forces, in addition to the rejection of the Israeli field results in the south after direct negotiations in Washington, and the refusal of Lebanon to give up its right to file lawsuits against Israel before international courts.
He pointed out that the southern concern overshadowed Berri’s speech, which made him limit himself to these objections without addressing, as he put it, “previous presidential and governmental violations of the constitution,” most notably the signing of the maritime border demarcation agreement with Cyprus and the well-known secret negotiations regarding including Lebanon with Israel in the gas pipeline project to Europe via Greece and others.
Al-Sayyed asked: “What is practical after this speech?” He considered that Berri’s words constitute an important personal position, but their effect remains political and moral unless they are completed constitutionally, legally, and practically by formally presenting these agreements and violations to the House of Representatives in accordance with the rules.
He revealed that he publicly demanded, at the beginning of the last two sessions of the Council, that all negotiations and agreements be presented to the representatives, based on what he described as the President of the Republic and the government’s violation of Article 52 and other articles of the Constitution, but his request was not met.
He believed that Berri might have considered it necessary at that time to wait for the results of the negotiations and agreements and avoid transferring the division early to the House of Representatives, adding: “Today the results appeared and were disastrous.”
He stressed that the representatives’ objection to these violations is not considered a division, but rather an expression of the position of the Lebanese people and a correction of the imbalance, based on the responsibility of the representatives to monitor the government, hold it accountable, and represent the people, stressing that “division over truth is better than consensus over falsehood.”
Al-Sayyed concluded by calling for a session of the House of Representatives to be held as soon as possible, to present all the agreements and negotiations, correct the defect, curb what he described as the deviation of the executive authority, and return it to the path of the constitution in a way that preserves the interest of Lebanon, the security of the south, and the dignity of its people, “and so that these words do not remain ink in the air.”
