Dotting the I’S & Crossing the T’S
Ghattas Khoury’s speech was neither in its place nor matched the truth
Written by Nasser Kandil,
The General Secretariat of the parliament has clarified in a statement, what has stated in the testimony of the former Deputy Ghattas Khoury in a special session of the International Tribunal in Lebanon on 15/1/2015, that the parliament has held a plenary session on Friday 3/9/2004 to discuss and approve the draft of the constitutional law of Lebanon, which is contained in the Decree No. 13259 which aims to add a paragraph to the Article 49 of the Constitution , which states (( for one time and exceptionally the mandate of the current president will last for three years and ends on the twentieth third of November 2007)). The statement adds that ((According to the legal and constitutional mechanism and pursuant to the provisions of the article 81 of the internal system, the voting for this law was by raising hands and calling, and has been ratified by a majority of 96 deputies and the opposition of 29 deputies)). Moreover the General Secretariat has explained that there was not in this legislative session any election of the new President for the Republic. Therefore the resorting to the ballot box is not possible in this session. The former Deputy Khoury has committed a mistake; he mixed between the legislative session to amend the constitution, and the session of electing the President. Accordingly, everything of what he has said before the International tribunal was not in its place, and did not match the truth.
The talking of the Former Deputy Ghatass Khoury about the voting for the law and its application was in its place, but he himself was not in his place, his presence before the court as a witness became a subject of amusement for the judges themselves and the interpreters, he has got a lot of notes about inaccuracy, inefficiency , ambiguity, and evasion and the talking about things that he was not part of it, but he has read about them in a newspaper or heard in the news bulletin, as his talking about the war in Iraq and presenting an analysis of the political geography of the region later on, or his analysis of the resolution 1559 and Al Taif Agreement.
The most important is what the Deputy Ghattas Khoury has claimed about the subjects of his testimony, it means the events which he was a part of them, but his claims were not in their place, for example, what he cited of the resolution of gathering the opposing blocs of Syria, which the Prime Minister Rafik Al Hariri has adhered after the extension in hours, and asked him to carry it out. If we compare his speech with the testimony of the Deputy Marwan Hamadeh concerning this issue, and who is closer to reality than Khoury who admitted that he left the Capital for many days after the extension. Hamadeh said that the resolution is taken by the Deputy Walid Jumblatt, while Al Hariri was opposing to it, and the attempt to include Al-Hariri was the aim of Jumblatt, but according to Hamadeh, Al-Hariri was convinced of his ability to constitute the first government after the extension, this case has lasted for more than a month. So how (( Bristol 1 )) was held after twenty days of the extension from the preparation of Ghattas who has returned to Beirut after the extension in many days, and has travelled before the conference in many days, maybe a medical conference, so if this was the reason so why Basil Fuleihan has missed it too, is it because Al-Hariri was still hoping of constituting the government which Jumblatt has deprived him from the chance of its constituting it because he refused to participate. It was just like what Hamadeh said that Al-Harir has wanted a government of collective national unity, and it will not be like that without Jumblatt. And not because all the formations which the Prime Minister Al-Hariri has wanted have been refused, so how it will be collective if he wanted it with the participation of Qornet Shehwan too, while Qornet Shehwan and Jumblatt agreed not to participate as Hamadeh said.
What Ghattas has talked about his meeting with the President Bashar Al-Assad and his narration, that it was on the twentieth forth of September 2004 it means after the extension, this aroused the sarcasm and humor. His speech has made everyone who listened to him laughing especially the judges. He asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister Al-Hariri hoping to be in the presidential candidate lists with the blessing of the President Al-Assad, the Prime Minister Al-Hariri has asked me to help him in this matter, just for a colleague in the bloc whom I have a friendship and affection relationship with, I asked the Brigadier General Rustom Ghazaleh whom Ghattas was always praising him, on the contrary to what he has said against him in his testimony, while Ghattas knew that well. Certainly the meeting was held before the extension, and certainly the meeting was to give Ghattas the honor he asked for.
What Ghattas has talked about the championship of his refusal of the extension , the surprising of the Prime Minister Al-Hariri about it, and the mediation of the Deputy Basil Fuleihan to reconcile them was a fiction of Ghattas, or it was a delirium, because all the parliament’s bloc members have heard the Prime Minister Al-Hariri at the bloc’s session asking everyone to participate in the parliamentary session, and to vote with the extension under the penalty of getting out of the bloc, and not to name himself in the lists of the Prime Minister Al-Hariri in the coming elections. They have heard him saying the two deputies Ghazi Al-Aridi and Ghattas Khoury are exceptions, the first one because he was in Jumblatt’s bloc as an ally, and the second one because he was a presidential candidate.
Surely, the question for Ghattas is how did The Prime Minister Al–Hariri approve the extension? Was it out of fear about himself or his family, or as what Ghattas has said about his people and country from the Syrian threat of destroying Lebanon upon his head and Jumblatt’s head, while he knew that there will be an international resolution against the extension, but suddenly he did not feel afraid of all of that, and decided to stand for the election in which he participated with the opponents of Syria, and under the slogan getting it out of Lebanon, after Syria had a constitutional president, whom he voted for and proposed amending the constitution to extend his mandate.
My question also, how did Al-Hariri threaten the deputies, because they did not accept candidates in his lists if they did not participate in the voting for the extension, while he wanted to form lists that are against the extension?
My question is for the Lebanese judges who participated in the court, how the speech of Ghattas about the voting and constitution and his contradictory testimony of Hamadeh’s has been approved, and they did not take into consideration except asking him superficial valueless questions such as distributing the roles among the combars in a bad series, in which the actors read their written roles in front of the cameras.
What is left is to say that the President Al-Hariri informed me in our famous meeting on the fifth of February before a few days of his assassination, when he said that he wanted to reconnect the relationships with Syria and its allies, and try to find an understanding about the election’s law, that he sent Ghattas and Basil to participate in Bristol, after he had believed that the election’s law which adopted by the President Emile Lahoud and the Minister Suleiman Franjieh on the basis of (the areas ) was a Syrian decision, he wanted through this participation to say to the Syrians, do not loose me and push me towards the opposition, my place is not there.
Unfortunately Ghattas’s speech was not in its place and did not match the truth.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,
2015-01-19 | عدد القراءات 2381
