“Lebanon Debate”
Al-Akhbar newspaper published an article in which it considered that the Council of Ministers opened Qlayaat Airport to a company linked to friends of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam. It focused on the contribution of journalist Dima Sadiq and her husband to the “IBEX Air Charter” company, and asked questions about the absence of a tender, the opinion of the Public Procurement Authority, and the award formula, before describing the decision as a political gift.
But the content of the decision and the data that reached the “Lebanon Debate” investigative team do not support this narrative.
The Council of Ministers did not grant “IBEX” the right to manage or operate Martyr President Rene Moawad Airport, nor did it purchase a service from it, nor did it allocate public funds to it. The decision was limited to licensing it to operate regular international flights between Qlayaat Airport and abroad and vice versa.
The regulatory license is different from the binding contract. Therefore, the question about a consensual contract, price offers, or purchasing services on an invoice does not seem consistent with the nature of the decision, as long as it does not include a contract under which the state pays money to the company, or grants it an exclusive right to invest in the airport.
The operation of regular international flights essentially requires the approval of the competent authorities, and remains linked to fulfilling the technical, operational and security conditions imposed by the civil aviation authorities.
The irony is that the “Al-Akhbar” article reported that the company has been operating in air transport for about twenty years, holds an air investor certificate “AOC” issued by the General Directorate of Civil Aviation, and is subject to periodic auditing regarding safety conditions and technical and legal requirements.
Consequently, the company did not enter the aviation sector as a result of the last decision, but was licensed for charter flights, while the new decision allowed it to operate regular flights from a specific airport after completing the necessary requirements.
It may be said that the essence of the case is not related to the award, but rather to granting the first license to a company linked to a media personality politically close to the Prime Minister. Questions may arise about how the door was opened to companies, the number of applicants, the criteria that were used, and the reason for IBEX’s progress on this path.
However, “Lebanon Debate” information indicates that the decision was not issued as a result of a comparison between a group of companies, one of which was chosen by the government, and that there was not a single contract put forward for competition so that it would be awarded to a winner and withheld from the others.
The license is not exclusive, and the right to submit a similar application is still available to any national company that meets the operating conditions. The issuance of the decision did not close the door to other applications or grant “IBEX” a right to prevent its competitors from operating from Klayaat.
Hence, the company cannot be treated as the “winner” of a project for which a number of applicants were competing, because the nature of the path allows for the granting of more than one license, and does not force the selection of one company at the expense of others.
The information also indicates that the limited number of interested companies at the current stage is not due to excluding competitors or rejecting their requests, but rather to the extent of the commercial risk associated with entering an airport that has not yet begun its regular operation, and does not have a previous record of passenger movement or flight occupancy rates.
Qlayaat Airport does not yet have actual numbers that companies can rely on to estimate the volume of demand, viable destinations, and expected revenue. Any company that starts working from it will bear the costs of operating flights, crews, maintenance, and marketing, without guaranteeing that it will achieve the traffic required to cover expenses or record profits.
This does not theoretically negate the possibility of favoritism in any administrative decision, but it does mean that describing the license as a financial gift or a privilege with a guaranteed return requires additional evidence that the Al-Akhbar article does not provide.
Favoritism is not proven simply by knowing the identity of the shareholders. Rather, it needs to prove political interference, reject a qualified application, grant exceptional exemptions, set detailed criteria for a specific company, or close the door to progress for competitors.
The article did not provide evidence that Nawaf Salam intervened to grant the license, or that another company submitted a similar application and was rejected, or that “IBEX” was exempted from a technical or operational condition, or that it obtained rights that no one else can obtain.
As for the reference to Dima Sadiq and her husband’s contribution to the company, it is information related to ownership and the media has the right to publish it. But it alone is not sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the decision was the result of a political relationship.
There is a distance between disclosing the identity of shareholders and proving favoritism that must be filled by facts, not suggestions.
There remain legitimate questions that should be followed up regarding the readiness of Qlayaat Airport, its infrastructure, safety standards, operation plan, companies’ ability to secure aircraft and crews, and the volume of expected traffic.
But accountability for the Qlayaat project must start from these elements, not from describing a non-exclusive license as an obligation, nor from considering a high-risk opportunity as a full-fledged political gift.
The available decision does not show that the airport was granted to IBEX, nor does it grant it its management or monopoly. The information also does not indicate competition from which companies were excluded for their own benefit.
What happened was that a company that had been in the aviation sector for years was granted a conditional license to operate regular flights from an airport whose commercial feasibility was still untested, while the door remained open to other companies.
There is a clear difference between licensing and binding, and between a non-exclusive right and a monopoly privilege there is a greater difference. As for turning Dima Sadiq’s name into stand-alone evidence of the existence of a political deal, it is a conclusion that the article did not provide enough to prove.
