OPENING STATEMENT BY DR. MUHAMAD MUGRABY

TRANSLATION

At the press conference of Tuesday, September 2, 2003, held in the Meridien Commodore

 Hotel, Beirut, Lebanon, and attended by media representatives and

  Embassy representatives of the U.S., U.K, France, Netherlands, and Japan. 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Although I am actually involved with the Bar Association at Beirut (“BAB”) in an old and purely legal controversy, which is complicated and still awaiting court decisions, my prime contention is not with the BAB or with its president. My prime contention is with corruption, comprehensive corruption that is characterized by open hostility to the rule of law and rights - civil, constitutional and human - and the uninterrupted violation of the due process of law.  In fact, I was placed under detention by a decision made at the highest levels of government due to my unrelenting dedication to the rule of law, and because I dared, by invoking the law, cross swords with all phenomena of corruption and abuse of power.  It is crystal clear that this comprehensive corruption is not a coincidence but a philosophy of governance, that, in conjunction with a serious structural anomaly, has turned Lebanon as a whole into one large prison filled with darkness and injustice. 

In both prisons, the small one and the large one, there prevails a tremendous feeling of oppression, a total lack of confidence in the regime with all its men and extensions, and an absence of any hope for change.  The two prisons, the one at Roumieh and Lebanon as a whole, are overflowing with victims of oppression. 

As I was and shall remain an advocate for human rights, the rule of law, integrity in the judiciary, and the equality provided under Article 7 of the Constitution and Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a defender of the poor and the oppressed and other victims of human rights violations and the abuse of power, and a teacher of rights to the populace at large, I seem to pose a threat so grave to the heart of the comprehensive corruption taking hold of the country, that it was deemed necessary to silence me by sending me to jail.  

Hence I became the victim of a character assassination attempt without precedent.  They concluded that my law firm, which I built over forty years of practice, enables me to use the law to defend rights and resist the abuse of power. Consequently, they sought to annihilate my career in law by slamming me with the absurd charge of “impersonating a lawyer”.  They widely publicized their charge through the media in the hope of discrediting me.  But the people are not stupid to believe such allegations. 

The offensive efforts directed against me are also aimed at hundreds of clients whom I defend and who enjoy the right to claim the protection of the law through my efforts.  The confrontation accelerated when I was declared a candidate for the presidency of the BAB. The current BAB president, whose term expires in November, reacted by filing a petition for my arrest and detention. 

It appears that there is very recent inclination by the holders of the highest decision-making powers in government to give the prosecutors and the BAB president a free hand against me in the hope of resolving the legal conflicts between each of them and myself that have been outstanding before courts of law for many years, instead of awaiting the judicial verdicts therein and abiding thereby.  There is one conflict with the public prosecutor and another conflict with the BAB. 

The conflict with the public prosecutor consists of seven lawsuits pending before the Beirut Court of Appeals. The oldest one dates back to 1996 and involves criminal charges filed against me by SOLIDERE, alleging that I had caused destruction in the Khayat Building on Fouad Shehab Avenue (which was subsequently demolished by none other than SOLIDERE under the protection of hundreds of policemen in gross violation of the building owner’s rights). The original number of these lawsuits was nine, all of which have the purpose of paving the way for my criminal prosecution by lifting my immunity as a lawyer, but I have already won the first two of these lawsuits.  These actions were filed because the public prosecutor was abiding by Article 75 of the Code on the Organization of the Legal Profession (“COLP”), which prohibits the provisional detention of lawyers, and Article 79 of the COLP, which prohibits the prosecution of lawyers without petitioning the council of the BAB in advance for its permission.  All decisions of the said council are subject to appeal before the court of appeals. Enclosed is a schedule of the original nine lawsuits. 

As for the BAB, the legal conflict consists of six pending lawsuits in addition to a report I had filed with the financial prosecutor and an addendum thereto.  This conflict started on April 3, 1999, and reached its peak when the former president of the BAB brought criminal charges against me on November 19, 2000, the day after the current president took office, for purportedly slandering the BAB Council. This action prompted my filing on February 26, 2002, of the newest civil action against the BAB and its previous and current presidents, seeking an order to prevent the BAB and its president from harassing me or interfering in my practice of law until a final decision is entered in the action. I have enclosed a copy of the claim form in the said action as well as a schedule of the six lawsuits. 

This latest action of February 26, 2002 was used by the president of the BAB as the pretext for his purported disciplinary measures that culminated in an illusory decision allegedly striking me off the BAB register.  In other words, he seeks to punish me for using one of my civil rights in my own defense! The letter addressed to me under his signature dated April 22, 2002, constitutes a clear admission of the motives of his acts against me. A copy thereof is also enclosed. 

Is it in this method, by arresting me and shutting down my office, that civil and legal conflicts pending before civil courts for the last eight years between lawyers, judges, and a bar association, can be resolved?  Is this method not an overt act of repression and attempt to obstruct justice? This act can properly be described as a crime similar to the crimes I filed charges for with the office of the national public prosecutor on December 21, 2000, a copy of which is also enclosed. 

It goes without saying that a lawyer is not ordained like a priest, and neither Mr. Raymond Chedid (the president of the BAB) nor anyone else may designate one a lawyer or deny him or her this standing. A lawyer becomes a lawyer when he or she fulfills the conditions of qualification and ability, which then become an indivisible part of his or her natural and human rights and of the rights of his or her society. No force on Earth can deny a lawyer the right to be a lawyer unless these natural, human rights are voluntarily abdicated or the conditions of qualification and ability are violated. 

The president of the BAB, Mr. Chedid, based his criminal complaint against me on two illusory decisions, which were both purportedly adopted in absentia. The first such decision, dated April 4, 2002, allegedly suspends me from legal practice for three years, and the second, dated January 17, 2003, allegedly strikes my name from the register of the BAB.  Each of the two illusory decisions, purportedly adopted in absentia, is signed by three “lawyers” constituting a “disciplinary board”, which are two of the three such “boards” ordered by Mr. Chedid in flagrant violation of the mandate under Article 96 of the COLP. Furthermore, Mr. Chedid, in his petition to have me arrested and jailed, used certain documents that were supplied to him by the First Investigating Magistrate of Beirut, in blatant violation of his legal duties, from a file belonging to one of my clients. Hence I was compelled to file criminal charges against both Mr. Chedid and his accomplice, the judge. These charges were filed with the offices of the President of Lebanon and the Minister of Justice, the two immediate superiors of the national prosecutor general who makes it his practice not to accept for filing all complaints he receives. 

Moreover, the full text of Mr. Chedid’s petition containing his criminal accusations against me (a copy of which was never made available to me and which I was never allowed to read) was published in a daily newspaper, Ad-Dyar, two days after my detention.  This also prompted me to file charges against the BAB and Mr. Chedid for slander and libel. 

I wish to pose the question: Does the president of the BAB have powers wider than those of the president of Lebanon? Is the president of Lebanon under the obligation to abide by the law and the constitution while the president of the BAB absolves himself of this duty and refuses to account to anybody, as he stated in one of his recent press conferences held against me? 

I pose another question: Under the constitution, the president of Lebanon may appoint a prime minister; can he appoint three prime ministers? Under the constitution, the president of Lebanon may sign a decree appointing a council of ministers; can he appoint three such councils? How can the president of the BAB, who is authorized by law (Article 96 of the COLP) to appoint one disciplinary council of two members, appoint three purported councils with a total of nine members? 

I ask: Codes of civil and criminal procedure define the subject matter and territorial jurisdiction of various courts.  Can a civil judge charged with hearing actions between landlords and tenants sit in divorce cases? Or, can a court of appeals with jurisdiction over real estate conflicts pass a judgment to execute the appellant or respondent?  How then can the president of the BAB charge some of his illusory “councils” with hearing matters that bear no relationship to the duties of the legal profession provided under Article 80 et seq of the COLP (but relate to a conflict at law between him and myself), consequently attempting to replace the court of law, flagrantly, in adjudicating the case to his advantage? 

Just as a reminder: The president of the republic and the courts are constitutional powers but the BAB is merely an association of private, natural persons comprised of practicing lawyers and has no authority to issue decrees or judgments in the name of the Lebanese people. This association exists because the lawyers exist, and not the other way around! 

Another Reminder: The single disciplinary council authorized by a special provision of the law is not a court of law and cannot issue judgments in the name of the Lebanese people, and its members are not sworn into office.  It is merely a private organization, and its acts cannot have any executory power without the intervention of courts that ultimately decide if such acts are in conformity with the law. 

Thus the three ‘disciplinary councils’ of nine members with three permanent chairmen decreed by Mr. Chedid are illusory and nonexistent.  Criticism of the decisions of the BAB council  (as part of the activities of the Campaign for Judicial Integrity, which I lead) is not a disciplinary offense as Mr. Chedid alleges, but a proper exercise of basic constitutional and human rights violated by Mr. Chedid.  Due process of law expected by any ordinary lawyer from any ordinary court was violated by the illusory and nonexistent decision dated April 4, 2002, purporting to suspend my practice for three years as punishment for the criticism.  As a reminder, the date of this illusory “decision” is subsequent to the date of the above-mentioned civil action, the mere existence of which was ignored.  Mr. Chedid first tried to give teeth to his “decision” through the former chief justice who acceded to his demand, called the chief clerk of the court of cassation, and ordered her not to accept any more papers from me or my law firm.  When word reached me, I went to see the chief justice and discussed the matter with him. He was convinced of his error and called the chief clerk, reversing his prior instructions. 

Mr. Chedid then made another move. He ordered another one of his illusory councils to hold a disciplinary trial for me for two reasons that have nothing to do with professional obligations or the dignity of the profession, namely:  

A.      That he asked me by a letter dated April 17, 2002, to meet with him at his office (without giving any reasons) but I did not show up.  In the early days of his term as president I came to his office by appointment that he had given me at my request but he refused to meet with me.

B.      That I had filed that same civil action.  Mr. Chedid maintains that I had an obligation to obtain an advance written permit from him before filing the lawsuit and that failure to get such permission is a disciplinary violation that warrants crossing my name off the BAB register. 

Again, members of this illusory and nonexistent “council” signed in January of 2003 (and after the lapse of their one year mandate assuming that they had been appointed lawfully) a “decision” in absentia like the one before. This second “decision” purports to strike my name off the BAB register, without regard to the pending civil action. This time it was a punishment for exercising my civil and human right to bring legal action in civil court. 

We are thus faced with a president of a bar association who commits grave errors of law, openly violates the basis of his legitimacy, orders the formation of unlawful and illusory “disciplinary councils”, and orders two of these “councils” to put me on trial in absentia for matters unrelated to my obligations as a lawyer but rather to matters related to the exercise of my constitutional, civil and human rights, and in total disregard of the judiciary’s role in resolving the civil legal conflict pending between the BAB and myself. 

Is the president of the BAB a power above all powers including the judiciary, and are his acts and the acts of his appointees above the law? 

Nevertheless, and in the meantime, the BAB, under the tight control of Mr. Chedid, conducted itself with me as if everything was normal, which evidences that the BAB had waived the two illusory “decisions” against me. 

For two months after the date of the first “decision”, Mr. Chedid responded to a written petition that I presented for permission to represent clients in an action against a colleague, as required under the provisions of the COLP, and gave me his written permission on June 26, 2002.  A copy is herein enclosed. 

After the date of the second “decision”, I had many of my clients’ powers of attorney registered at the BAB, then, on April 1, 2003, paid my annual membership dues along with my retirement plan participation fees and the annual subscription to the BAB law journal Al-Adl against an official receipt. I made the payment by means of a personal check bearing the name of my law firm which Mr. Chedid personally endorsed for deposit in the BAB’s bank account and cleared my bank. A copy of the receipt is herein enclosed. (A copy of the cleared check is available upon request). 

Hence it is evident that the BAB did not take the two “decisions” seriously.  Rather, it appears that Mr. Chedid and his mentors, who hold the power to make high-level decisions of government, thought that they might succeed in silencing me through the threat posed by the illusory “decisions”. 

The irony of it all is that in the past, I used to defend clients against the abuse of power duly based in the constitution and the laws, while now I stand to defend myself against the abuse of illusory and nonexistent “power” which is not only legally baseless but is in defiance of the legal power provided in the constitution! 

Finally, I thank all the honorable people in Lebanon and worldwide who worked for my liberation and urge them to continue to stand in support of the cause of right, liberty and the rule of law.  My special thanks go to those who expressed their support with the sit-ins that took place in Antelias, in the Palace of Justice, and outside of the Palace of Justice. On my part, I promise them all that I will continue to defend this cause and to serve Lebanon and human rights by the might of right. 

As I have not yet become fully aware of what went on in my absence during my detention because no information was permitted regarding all matters personal to me, as if I were dwelling in a dark cage, I reserve the right to take all legal measures that I may deem necessary or appropriate against all such parties that may be liable, especially with exercising the right of rebuttal and correction. 

Thank you.