A law that Lebanon's parliament adopted on July 31, 2025, includes positive reforms for Lebanon's judiciary but falls short of guaranteeing judicial independence, Human Rights Watch said today.
The law includes some advances in terms of judicial independence, including greater judicial self-governance and the expansion of elections of judges by other judges. But it allows Lebanon's government-appointed top public prosecutor to order other prosecutors to cease ongoing legal proceedings and limits the ability of Lebanon's highest judicial body to overcome government gridlock and obstruction in judicial appointments.
"After years of unrelenting efforts by Lebanese rights and judicial groups, Lebanon's parliament made progress but didn't fully seize the opportunity to protect Lebanon's judiciary from political interference," said Ramzi Kaiss, Lebanon researcher at Human Rights Watch. "While the law is progressive in many ways, unaddressed gaps continue to threaten the independence of the judiciary and open it up for continued political interference."
Lebanon's parliament speaker reportedly signed the law on August 7 and forwarded it to Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and President Joseph Aoun to sign it into law. Lebanon's government and parliament should now work to amend the law and bring it in line with international standards for judicial independence, including recommendations provided by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Human Rights Watch said. The law is set to go into effect in January 2026.
In May, prior to the draft law going before parliament, Lebanese rights and judicial groups welcomed the government's approval of the draft Law on the Independence of the Judiciary, which was later renamed to the Law Regulating the Ordinary Judiciary, stating that it was "a promising step toward reform." The groups, including the Coalition for Judicial Independence in Lebanon and Legal Agenda, who in 2018 introduced an original version of the draft law to parliament, called on parliament to further amend the law and bring it in line with international standards.
"When the law was drafted in 2018, we included very high standards on judicial independence," said Nizar Saghieh, executive director of Legal Agenda. "There are several positive developments with this current version of the law, relating to judicial elections, transparency and freedom of expression and association, but it is still very far from where it should be."
The text adopted by parliament largely ignored many of the civil society recommendations. The process of adopting the law was also marred by significant violations of the legislative process. They included last minute amendments that parliament members could not review before voting and a haphazard tallying process that led some reporters and members of parliament to conclude that the draft law did not receive a majority of the votes.
"We didn't discuss the law nor vote on it. They called out some names [of parliamentarians] and then the law was approved," said MP Halimeh Kaakour [LS1] in a video published on social media.
The new law contains advancements for judicial independence. It expands the participation of judges in judicial electoral processes, allowing judges to nominate themselves to various judicial positions, and strengthens judicial self-governance, including over promotions, discipline, and the assignment of judges to cases. It also tasks the Supreme Judicial Council, the country's highest judicial body, with developing internal judicial regulations and a judicial code of conduct.
The law acknowledges judges' rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association, and requires judges to notify the head of the Supreme Judicial Council 48 hours before a media appearance. Article 53 says that "judges are independent in carrying out their work" and "may not be moved, assessed, disciplined or suspended from the judiciary except in accordance with the scope of the law."
Article 77 says that "a judge may not be suspended except in accordance with the law and may not be moved from their position within four years, without their consent." Under the law, a judge cannot remain in a specific position for more than 5 years and should be moved to an equal or higher position after that, unless the judge is facing disciplinary measures.
The law also limits the executive branch's role in selecting judges for the Supreme Judicial Council. Under the new law, 4 of the 10 members are to be elected by members of Lebanon's judiciary, four are to be ex officio members appointed by the government on the basis on nominations put forward by the Supreme Judicial Council, and two would be selected by the eight sitting members of the council. Members would serve for a nonrenewable five-year period.
While the introduction of judges elected by other judges to the highest judicial body is noteworthy, the original version of the draft stipulated that the judiciary would elect a majority of Supreme Judicial Council members, as the Venice Commission had recommended. But as Legal Agenda reported, parliament's Administration and Justice Committee amended the law to increase the number of government-appointed members from three to four.
The most concerning provision is article 42, which enables the country's top public prosecutor, who is appointed by the government based on nominations put forward by the Supreme Judicial Council, to request that lower-level prosecutors stop ongoing legal proceedings. This would, grant the prosecutor excessive powers and the ability to intervene in ongoing investigations, Human Rights Watch said. The law also limits the ability of the Supreme Judicial Council to overcome government gridlock over judicial appointments by requiring 7 out of the 10 members to approve appointing judges over the government's objection.
The Lebanese Judges' Association criticized the law on July 31, saying that it "reinforces sectarianism, renews political interference in the judiciary, and reaffirms the Supreme Judicial Council's deprivation of any independence, administrative or financial." The association accused the parliamentary committee of ignoring its recommendations and those from the Venice Commission.
Lebanese rights groups have previously criticized attempts by both the Administration and Justice Parliamentary Committee and the former justice minister to amend the draft in a manner that contravenes international standards.
The Venice Commission adopted separate opinions on the Draft Law on Independence and Transparency of the Judiciary in 2022, later renamed the Law Organizing the Ordinarily Judiciary, and a Draft Law on the Administrative Judiciary in 2024, providing the Lebanese government and parliament with recommendations intended to bring provisions regulating the judiciary in line with international standards.
Lebanon's government should also advance further judicial reforms by working with parliament to remove civilians from the jurisdiction of Lebanon's military courts. In recent years, Lebanese authorities have used the military court's legal jurisdiction over civilians as a means to intimidate or punish them for political activism or to stamp out dissent. The military court should only have jurisdiction over purely military matters, but never when a civilian is the alleged victim or defendant.
"The adoption of this law serves as a first step in the reform of the judiciary, but the fight will not be over until Lebanese leaders finally scuttle legal provisions used to interfere with and stymie the work of the judiciary," Kaiss said.
