By: Dr. Abdelaziz Tarekji

The case of Hannibal Gaddafi was never a judicial dispute nor a genuine search for truth. From the very first moment, it was a case tainted by kidnapping, extortion, and politicization  governed by sectarian interests and managed by power centers and militias  while the Lebanese judiciary played the role of an obedient subordinate rather than an independent arbiter.

For ten years, the man remained in prison not because he was accused of any crime, but because he became a political tool and a pressure card whose name internal and external actors wished to exploit for their own agendas.

The Beginning.

The story began with a clear crime: the kidnapping of the man outside Lebanese territory in an operation carried out by a group linked to influential actors inside Lebanon, specifically individuals within the orbit of the Amal Movement, which later took control of the case of Imam Musa al-Sadr.

Despite the clarity of Lebanese law  particularly Article 569 of the Penal Code, which criminalizes kidnapping and imposes aggravated penalties  the Lebanese judiciary never opened a serious investigation into this crime. Instead, the kidnappers were treated as informants, while the victim was treated as a criminal ready for detention.

Hannibal Gaddafi was a two-year-old child when Imam al-Sadr disappeared in 1978, yet he was transformed into a symbol of revenge ready for political exploitation, punished for an event that occurred before his existence and consciousness.

This blatant contradiction did not stop the forces controlling the case from continuing to exploit it, led by the Amal Movement and Hezbollah, turning the detention into a tool of internal and regional pressure that opened and closed according to political circumstances.

The scene was not purely Lebanese. Influential Syrian actors (under the regime of the dictator Bashar al-Assad, a fugitive from justice) entered the file, viewing Hannibals imprisonment as a negotiable card in their dealings with Libyan actors and regional forces with remaining stakes in the Gaddafi familys influence.

Thus, the man found himself trapped between three main forces:

The Amal Movement  Hezbollah  Syrian security and political actors,
all of whom saw him as a negotiable asset, not a human being with rights.

Meanwhile, the Lebanese judiciary abandoned the constitutional and legal texts that should have protected him.

Article 8 of the Lebanese Constitution states that personal freedom is guaranteed and no one may be arrested or detained except in accordance with the law, and Article 20 guarantees the independence of the judiciary and the right of every person to a fair trial. Likewise, Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights  ratified by Lebanon  prohibits arbitrary detention.

Despite all this, Hannibal remained in prison for ten years without a completed trial, without evidence, without witnesses, and without any legal basis that justified extending his detention.

Article 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that pretrial detention is an exception, not a rule, and must be time-limited and clearly justified. Yet all of this was ignored, transforming the detention into a purely political act of vengeance.

The most revealing moment came when the decision was issued to release him in exchange for an astronomical financial bail, with no basis in any legal text or recognized judicial precedent.

Article 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifies that bail has one purpose only: ensuring the defendants appearance before the court. It cannot be a tool of punishment, a negotiable sum, or a political price.

But the decision resembled an official ransom extracted in exchange for the freedom of a man against whom no crime had been proven.

This release was not a triumph of justice; it was a public scandal confirming that the Lebanese judiciary has become part of the machinery of political obedience, and that the case was closed simply because the parties that required its continuation no longer found it necessary.

Hannibal Gaddafi walked out of prison, but the case remains the deepest stain on the forehead of the Lebanese state:

a judiciary that did not investigate the kidnapping, violated the Constitution, ignored the laws, acted under militia pressure, and imposed an illegal bail.

A Direct Violation of the Constitution and the Law.

The continued detention of Hannibal Gaddafi for ten years, followed by his release through a bail entirely outside legal norms, constitutes a direct and explicit violation of the Lebanese Constitution and several of its fundamental articles:

– Article 8 of the Constitution: Violated when he was arrested without any legal basis, and kept in detention despite the absence of justification.

– Article 20 of the Constitution: Collapsed when the judiciary lost its independence and submitted to the pressures of parties and militias.

– Article 2 of the Constitution, which imposes respect for Lebanons international commitments: violated through the breach of Article 9 of the ICCPR, which prohibits arbitrary detention.

– Article 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Completely violated by turning pretrial detention into a prolonged political punishment.

– Article 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Manipulated through the imposition of a financial bail whose only purpose was extortion  an abuse of authority.

These violations collectively are not merely judicial errors but constitute a constitutional crime that strikes at the heart of the state and its obligations, exposing the collapse of judicial independence and its transformation into a tool of political and militia control.

Hannibal Gaddafi may have regained his freedom, but justice in Lebanon remains imprisoned, not liberated by constitutional texts but by the will of forces that treat human beings as political bargaining chips.

A Recommendation to the Lebanese Government

If the Lebanese government is truly serious about salvaging what remains of its international reputation, it must undertake radical  not cosmetic  measures, beginning with lifting political control over the judiciary and ending with rebuilding the judicial institution from the ground up.

Protecting judges loyal to political factions, and tolerating public prosecutors who function as political commissars rather than judicial authorities, places Lebanon squarely in the category of failed states in the eyes of the international community.

Therefore, the urgent and clear recommendation to the government is: dismiss every judge and public prosecutor whose allegiance to any political faction has been proven, and appoint genuinely independent judges so that the judiciary may regain its role as a protector of the Constitution rather than a tool in the hands of sectarian powers.

No state that respects itself can accept the continuation of this model of militia and political interference in its judicial system.
And if Lebanon does not act today to protect the independence of its judiciary, tomorrow there will be nothing left to save  not reputation, not institutions, and not the state itself.