:
At a time when the Ministry of Communications and all concerned parties were expected to focus their efforts on securing communications and the Internet, protecting the continuity of networks, assisting citizens in areas of displacement, and ensuring minimum public services under difficult circumstances, it appears that priorities have taken a completely different direction, especially under the leadership of Communications Minister Charles Hajj, who cannot be separated from this rapid and controversial trend. Instead of the crisis being an incentive to launch a national emergency plan for the telecommunications sector, during his reign it turned into a cover for a project to oblige the management and operation of the two cellular networks, in a move that not only shows a major imbalance in the order of priorities, but also reveals a clear political orientation on the part of the minister to impose a costly structural option, even at the expense of the continuity of public service in times of crises, which raises doubts about exploiting these circumstances to pass a path that does not tolerate delay or ambiguity.
The issue at hand is not just a simple administrative procedure, nor a limited technical detail, but rather a complete path to entrust the management and operation of the Alfa and Touch cellular companies, as is clear in the book of conditions issued on March 4, 2026, and the executive procedures that followed at a remarkable pace under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Communications. This progress, although it is still subject to constant political questioning, reinforces the belief that the decision was not discussed in the first place, but was taken in advance, and that what is happening is nothing but a gradual implementation of a settled choice, which makes Minister Charles Haj directly responsible for advancing this path, before any clear legal or political cover is completed.
The basic irony is that this path began in practice after a parliamentary question dated February 11, 2026, which asked the government to clarify the legal, financial and institutional basis for Cabinet Resolution No. 5 issued on January 15, 2026, related to obligating the management and operation of the two cellular networks. This not only raises a question mark over the timing of implementation, but also puts the minister’s performance under the microscope: how can implementation continue when the legitimacy itself is still in doubt? Why did Charles Hajj choose to move forward instead of stopping to provide the required clarifications? Was the goal to bypass accountability rather than answer it?
What is more dangerous than that is that what was proposed was not merely an internal preparation of a book of conditions, but rather an actual shift to the stage of contracting for consulting services to prepare the contract file and the management and operation agreement, in a step that took place under the auspices of the Ministry of Communications, even though the Council of Ministers requested that the book of conditions be prepared, and not its obligation to external parties. Here, the issue is no longer a technical or administrative interpretation, but rather turns into an explicit political decision for which the minister bears responsibility: Who allowed this expansion? On what basis was the door to spending opened? Why were the limits of the government decision exceeded in this way, and at this particular time?
On March 8, 2026, that is, days after the start of the massive Israeli attack on Lebanon, the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority launched a request for proposals to obtain consulting services to prepare the contract file, in a step that cannot be separated from the directions of the Ministry of Communications led by Charles Hajj, which chose to pursue this path at the height of the security and humanitarian collapse. Although the announcement talked about improving governance and modernizing services, the insistence on launching this path at the height of the crisis cannot be interpreted as a reform priority, but rather as a political insistence on passing a project, regardless of the circumstances, which reinforces doubts about the real motives behind it.
But the problem does not stop at the administrative decision, but rather extends to the network of relationships that surround it. The information that is being reported about repeated visits linked to the Al-Kharafi Group to Lebanon, and the coincidence between them and the Ministry’s push towards contracts, calls for raising serious questions about the nature of this relationship, and whether this path is taking place within a transparent competitive framework, or within the context of paving the way for specific partnerships. Here, it cannot be ignored that Minister Charles Hajj, as the decision-maker, bears the responsibility of clarifying these matters, not letting them fester in light of ambiguity, because the continuation of this parallelism between relations and decisions only leads to strengthening suspicions.
In times of crisis, this path becomes even more dangerous. While the Lebanese were facing one of the most difficult periods in their history, with the displacement of nearly a million citizens, the destruction of tens of thousands of homes, the displacement of more than 110 areas, and thousands of deaths and injuries, the Ministry of Communications, led by the minister himself, was pushing to open the door to tenders and structural contracts, instead of focusing on managing the crisis and ensuring the continuity of networks. This contradiction cannot be justified. Rather, it reflects a fundamental flaw in the minister’s priorities, and raises a legitimate question: Was Charles Hajj managing the communications sector…or restructuring it at a moment of collapse?
Field incidents showed significant damage to communications and Internet services, and an inability to assist displacement centers and provide minimal services, at a time when the ministry was supposed to be on high alert. However, the push for the contracting project continued, as if the interruption was not a priority, as if people were not a priority, and as if the crisis was not a priority. This puts the minister’s performance directly under scrutiny: Why was protecting the network not a priority? Why offer the obligation option at the expense of crisis management?
The financial aspect makes the picture more serious. Opening the door to spending on consultants, and perhaps later on external operators, at this time cannot be separated from questions about the proper management of public money and the parties that may benefit from this path. The absence of clarity about funding sources, in light of a stifling financial crisis, reinforces the belief that the decision was not based on the state’s priorities, but rather on other considerations, which the minister bears responsibility for clarifying to public opinion.
What is more dangerous than that is that the insistence on continuing on this path, despite the crisis and despite parliamentary accountability, makes it difficult to separate this insistence from the network of relationships that imposes itself in the background of the scene, and the increasing external interest in the sector. Here, the question turns to a more sensitive level: Are we facing an actual reform path, or are we facing a redistribution of the sector under the title of reform? Is the decision entirely sovereign, or does it intersect with interests and partnerships that are being silently prepared?
In conclusion, what is happening cannot be treated as an administrative or technical dispute, but rather as a political choice for which the Ministry of Communications and its Minister, Charles Hajj, bear directly. Because what is happening is not limited to managing a sector, but rather it is restructuring it at the most dangerous time in Lebanon’s modern history, and in a way that raises more than one question mark about the goals and results.
In conclusion, what raises concern is not only the content of the step, but the minister’s insistence on pushing it at this particular time, despite all the data that imposes the opposite. At the moment when the primary concern was supposed to be securing communications and the Internet and maintaining the continuity of public facilities, Charles Hajj chose another path, surrounded by suspicions, accompanied by questionable relationships, and becoming more dangerous with every step forward. Hence, the warning is no longer just a position, but rather a necessity, because what is happening does not appear to be reform as much as it appears to be an attempt to impose a new reality, the cost of which to the state and the sector may be much higher than what is announced.
