In the Dahr al-Baydar explosives case, the procedural exceptions filed by the defence precede future interrogations. A hearing was announced for November 17, 2026. This step calls for an opinion from the military prosecutor’s office and then a decision from Judge Ghada Bou Alwan. This sequence concerns the regularity of prosecution and investigation. It does not, on its own, make it possible to conclude that the accused are guilty or innocent.
The minutes of the November 5 hearing distinguish two situations. Two men already detained were questioned. For other defendants, the defence submitted a brief raising preliminary questions. Their hearings were postponed. The continuation of the case thus also depends on decisions on the procedure, distinct from the examination of the facts alleged.
Procedural exceptions regulate prosecution
Article 73 of the Lebanese Code of Criminal Procedure organizes these objections. It allows the accused person, his or her lawyer without the presence of his or her client, and the prosecutor to lift them. The text provides for their presentation only once, before the examination, at the stages of the investigation and the judgment which it seeks.
Possible reasons cover several specific issues. Is the court seised competent? Has the public action been extinguished for a reason prescribed by law? Is there an obstacle to receiving or pursuing the prosecution before considering its merits? The text also covers previous prosecutions and judgements, the authority of res judicata and the nullity of one or more investigative acts.
These categories do not all have the same consequences. To challenge jurisdiction is to ask whether the right judge is considering the case. Invoking the nullity of an act amounts to discussing the conditions under which that act was performed. A further issue is the authority of an earlier decision. The term « procedure » thus covers safeguards that may influence the conduct of proceedings.
In the Dahr al-Baydar case, the full text of the memorandum is not public in the documents consulted. It would therefore be premature to attribute each of these arguments to the defence. Their general presentation explains the legal mechanism, without reconstituting conclusions to which the public does not have access.
The prosecutor gives an opinion, the judge takes the decision
The defence sets out its objections. The Public Prosecutor ‘ s Office, which carries out public proceedings, can discuss them and present its legal position. The investigating magistrate then decides. Consultation with the prosecutor does not transform his opinion into a decision and does not transfer the power of the judge to him.
The military framework has its own rules. Articles 33 and 54 of the Military Justice Act refer to the Code of Criminal Procedure where their special provisions do not derogate from them. The two texts should therefore be read together, rather than automatically transposing into this case every stage of ordinary criminal proceedings.
The distinction between opinion and decision also appears in a decision of the Permanent Military Court of 15 May 2026. The published extracts of this decision, in another case, state that the purpose of consulting the prosecution is to enable him to present his views. Such consultation does not amount to seeking its agreement and does not bind the court to its position.
This precedent does not prejudge the fate of objections in the explosives case. It only sheds light on the division of roles. Each decision depends on the evidence actually raised, the documents produced and the applicable rules.
Deadlines changed since December 2023
To understand the timetable, the current version of Article 73 must be used. Act No. 321 of 22 December 2023 amended. The Official Journal published this reform on 28 December 2023. The old text, which provided for a decision within one week of filing, is no longer sufficient to describe the procedure.
The new article provides for two weeks for the prosecution to submit its observations after the notification of the exceptions. It then provides for a decision by the investigating judge within two weeks of the presentation of the case by the prosecution. The judge must decide before commencing the examination, without attaching the exception to the examination of the merits.
These deadlines have separate starting points. The date of a hearing does not reveal the exact date of notification of the brief or of the return of the file. Without these elements, one cannot calculate a certain deadline for the Dahr al-Baydar case. November 17 is an announced hearing date, not evidence that all preliminary issues will be finally resolved that day.
The reform also regulates appeals and provides for a financial penalty for the person whose exceptions appear unfounded. This mechanism seeks to reconcile the rights of the defence with the proper conduct of justice. Its existence makes it impossible to qualify in advance the brief filed in this case as a delaying manoeuvre.
What to check in the next step
The first expected information relates to the decision on objections. Their rejection may allow further investigation in accordance with the applicable rules. Their reception may change this path, to a degree that depends on the reason chosen. A nullity of a particular act does not automatically confuse itself with the nullification of the whole case.
It will then be necessary to check the conduct of the announced interrogations and any appeals. The public information available does not give the full content of the prosecution’s observations or a reasoned decision on the exceptions. They therefore do not make it possible to announce a referral to a court of judgment or a final outcome.
The accused remain presumed innocent. For the immediate follow-up, the announced appointment remains on November 17, subject to procedural decisions and necessary notifications.
Comments