The Lebanese Military Court: A Tool for Security or a Means to Suppress Opposition?

By Toni Boulos

Calls to amend the Military Judiciary Law due to vague powers that open the door to political interference.

Recently, Lebanon’s Military Court has witnessed notable changes, most prominently the appointments made by President Joseph Aoun shortly after his election, without consulting political forces, including Hezbollah. This decision is considered unprecedented, as military court appointments have traditionally been tied to sectarian and political quotas.

Observers believe that the issuance of a decree appointing the heads and members of the Military Court for 2025 is not merely about changes in names or positions but signals a new direction at the beginning of this new era. It seeks to reshape the Military Court away from politics and partisan interests. Opposition political forces have long argued that the court has become a tool for settling political scores, intimidating opponents, undermining democracy, and fabricating judicial cases under the pretext of “terrorism” or collaboration with Israel.

The Military Court in Lebanon has been subject to intense legal criticism, especially regarding its broad powers that sometimes exceed those recognized by international military courts. This includes trying civilians accused of terrorism and collaboration with Israel, as well as other sensitive and complex cases that require specialized courts.

Human rights lawyer and activist Diala Shehadeh revealed that over the past decade, at least three draft laws have been proposed to amend the military judiciary system. She considers the issue of Lebanon’s Military Court as one of the pressing human rights concerns that require urgent intervention to reform the existing legal and judicial framework.

Shehadeh points out that the jurisdiction of the Military Court remains largely ambiguous due to a clause in the Military Judiciary Law stating that any attack on the military institution is subject to its authority. Under this clause, the military prosecutor can refer any case deemed an attack on the military institution to the court, facilitating the misuse of this authority and turning the court into a political tool for the authorities.

Originally, the court was intended to handle cases involving members of military institutions—such as the army, Internal Security Forces, General Security, and State Security—when they commit crimes while performing their duties. However, over time, the court’s powers expanded to cover a wide range of crimes, from shootings to terrorism, contradicting its initial purpose and raising questions about the legitimacy of such expansions.

Shehadeh highlights that the court deals with issues of national security and public welfare, such as the clashes in Khaldeh and Tayouneh (incidents involving Hezbollah and local residents), terrorism cases like the Nahr al-Bared and Sidon events (Palestinian camp conflicts), the case of Michel Samaha (accused of plotting bombings on behalf of the Syrian regime), and the pursuit of terrorist cells. The court also handles matters related to the Syrian revolution and internal armed conflicts in Syria, with a noticeable rise in cases following Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian conflict.

She emphasizes that numerous human rights violations have been reported in the Military Court, where detainees often face legal and human rights abuses. Many are denied access to legal representation or contact with their families, and torture is frequently used to extract false confessions. Additionally, civilians seeking justice for crimes committed by military personnel against them often face significant hurdles, including being denied legal representation or participation in proceedings, leaving them unable to challenge court rulings.

Shehadeh also notes that the military prosecutor holds extensive authority to pursue anyone anywhere, as seen during the October 17, 2019, uprising, when protesters were prosecuted under the pretext of preventing road closures or disruptions to constitutional institutions. This led to the treatment of free expression, gatherings, and protests as crimes warranting severe action.

The Military Court in Lebanon was initially established as part of a judicial structure dedicated to military matters. However, it evolved into a politically charged institution, particularly during Syria’s dominance over Lebanon, which lasted until 2005. During this period, the court was used as a repressive tool to intimidate opponents and suppress political movements against Syrian influence.

After the withdrawal of Syrian forces, control shifted to Hezbollah, which leveraged the Military Court to consolidate its authority and intimidate political rivals. Through judicial appointments and investigative officers, Hezbollah ensured its dominance, raising doubts about the court’s independence and its role in upholding justice.

The Military Court has faced widespread criticism for undermining democracy, with notable examples including the arrests of activists and journalists under vague charges such as “weakening national sentiment” or “jeopardizing state security.” These practices have sparked public and human rights outrage, as the court is seen as a tool for silencing political opposition rather than a body delivering justice.

Former Justice Minister and MP Ashraf Rifi has been among the most vocal advocates for abolishing the Military Court. He described it as a “political court rather than a judicial one” and called for limiting its jurisdiction to strictly military cases. He argued that the court has been excessively and unjustifiably used against Hezbollah’s opponents under allegations of “terrorism” or “collaboration with Israel,” eroding public trust in the institution and turning it into an instrument of political oppression.

Lawyer and human rights activist Mohammed Sablouh has also called for the complete abolition of the Military Judiciary, arguing that it fails to deliver true justice and perpetuates a climate of injustice and arbitrariness against civilians. He cited numerous cases of human rights violations, including torture and fabricated charges.

Sablouh criticized security agencies for manipulating judicial files, accusing them of manufacturing extremism. He pointed to targeted actions against youth in certain regions, particularly Tripoli, who are unjustly accused of terrorism based solely on their geographic origin. This, he argues, reflects discriminatory policies that deepen divisions among Lebanese citizens.

He also condemned the Lebanese authorities, stating that the Military Judiciary has become a tool to entrench power and protect the interests of dominant factions. He stressed the need to activate international human rights laws and implement them in Lebanon, advocating for systemic judicial reforms, including the abolition of the Military Court.

On the other hand, a judicial source within the Military Court defended its role, arguing that it has successfully protected Lebanon from significant threats by prosecuting terrorist networks and espionage operations. According to this perspective, the court is essential for handling cases related to state security, such as treason, espionage, and terrorism, which require specialized judicial expertise.

The source emphasized that the court operates within legal frameworks that ensure the protection of detainees’ rights, including fair trials. Nevertheless, it primarily focuses on cases that pose major threats to Lebanon’s stability.

The Military Court in Lebanon remains a polarizing institution. While some view it as a critical tool for safeguarding national security, others argue that it has become a mechanism for political suppression. Calls for its reform or abolition highlight deep divisions within Lebanon’s political and judicial systems, reflecting broader struggles for justice and democracy.

Related Posts