Bassil from Parliament: Bank Restructuring Law Legalizes Deposit “Clipping”… Fiscal Gap Law Must Come First

MP Gebran Bassil, President of the Free Patriotic Movement, commented following the conclusion of the parliamentary session, stating:
“The law organizing the judicial judiciary contains nothing that truly ensures judicial independence. This must be said clearly—so that we, as MPs, do not deceive ourselves or mislead public opinion into believing we have passed a law that guarantees such independence.”
Bassil emphasized that the law violates fundamental principles of judicial independence, as outlined by the Venice Commission at Lebanon’s request.
“A core principle of judicial independence is maintaining balance between the judicial authority and the individual judge—ensuring that neither dominates the other, nor the plaintiffs. This essential equilibrium is completely absent.”
He also highlighted the lack of financial independence in the judiciary, asking:
“How can a judge be independent when they are financially dependent—waiting for salary disbursements requiring the signature of a minister or political figure? Judges have no dedicated budget, the Supreme Judicial Council has no spending authority or decision-making power, and judges lack financial security, leaving them vulnerable to financial pressure and blackmail—as is often the case.”
Addressing the election process of the Supreme Judicial Council, Bassil noted:
“Only four members are elected; the rest are appointed. Moreover, judicial appointments are issued by decree and require the signatures of the President, Prime Minister, Finance Minister, and Justice Minister. Where is the independence in that? Such appointments should be issued by decision, not by decree.”
He added:
“Isn’t it strange that judicial appointments were issued yesterday, and today Parliament is discussing judicial independence? Why wasn’t the law passed first, so appointments could follow the new, independent mechanism?”
Turning to the bank restructuring file, Bassil warned of a looming catastrophe:
“Before deciding how to distribute losses, we must first determine their size. Yet here we are, facing a law that distributes losses without defining the method, while legalizing the banks’ actions and linking this law’s enforcement to the adoption of another law—the Fiscal Gap Law.”
He continued:
“The correct order should be to first issue the Fiscal Gap Law—or at least adopt both laws together. Passing the current law with an article stating it cannot be implemented until the Fiscal Gap Law is passed opens the door to a Constitutional Council challenge.”
Bassil cautioned:
“The Constitutional Council may strike down that article, leaving the law enforceable on its own. In that case, Parliament would have effectively legalized the deduction of depositors’ funds through bank restructuring, without offering alternative solutions. This is why the Fiscal Gap Law must be passed first—or that article must be completely removed.”
He went on to explain:
“The fiscal gap stands at $72 billion—a figure that cannot be addressed without recovering funds that were transferred abroad arbitrarily and unjustly.”
Bassil lamented Parliament’s refusal to pass related legislation:
“We submitted a draft law five years ago to authorize the recovery of these funds, but it was never approved. Today presents an opportunity to introduce a provision in the current law that empowers the Supreme Banking Authority to recover those discretionary transfers.”
He added:
“We doubt Parliament will approve it—because we all know who made those transfers and how, both before and after October 17, 2019. These discretionary transfers continued up until June 30, 2025.”
In conclusion, Bassil stressed:
“This law was passed simply to give the illusion to the international community that reform has been achieved. But the reality is different—what passed is a law whose implementation depends on another law, and therefore it is not a genuine reform law.”