Lebanon's parliament has passed a contentious general amnesty law, a day after legislators voted to abolish the death penalty. Supporters of the new law argue it is a crucial step toward rectifying past judicial and security overreach and alleviating prison overcrowding. However, critics contend the legislation is unevenly applied and disproportionately benefits Sunni Islamist prisoners.
The proposed law, which has been under discussion since 2019, has highlighted existing sectarian divisions within Lebanon's diverse religious landscape. The most recent comparable amnesty was enacted in 1991, following the country's devastating 1975-1990 civil war, absolving many combatants and militia leaders of wartime actions.
The current amnesty law converts death sentences to lengthy prison terms, reduces life sentences, and allows for the release of certain convicted militants and drug offenders. It explicitly excludes crimes such as rape, trafficking, corruption, terror financing, and premeditated murder. However, it offers reduced sentences for those convicted of killing Lebanese soldiers. Some detainees are expected to be released immediately.
Offenders with repeated drug convictions and individuals found guilty of collaborating with Israel are not eligible for the amnesty. The application of the law to Lebanese families who sought refuge in Israel after the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon in 2000, provided they were not involved in hostilities against Lebanon, remains unclear.
Foreign nationals released under the amnesty, primarily Syrian Islamist militants, will be transferred to Lebanon's General Security agency for immigration law enforcement, with their potential deportation status not yet determined.
During parliamentary debates, legislators from various religious sects voiced specific demands. Sunni lawmakers advocated for the release of Islamist militants, while Shiite legislators pushed for the release of drug traffickers, many originating from the eastern Baalbek region known for cannabis cultivation. Christian representatives sought amnesty for hundreds of Lebanese who fled to Israel after the Israeli withdrawal, many of whom had ties to the South Lebanon Army militia.
A focal point of contention throughout the prolonged debate has been the fate of extremist Islamist prisoners, including cleric Ahmad al-Assir. Al-Assir had gained a following in southern Lebanon for his strong opposition to Hezbollah's involvement in the Syrian civil war. Clashes involving his supporters and opponents in 2013 resulted in the deaths of 18 Lebanese soldiers, and he was sentenced to death in 2017. While his specific outcome is uncertain, Lebanese lawmaker Waddah Sadek suggested that al-Assir could potentially be released within one to two years.
Sunni legislators largely welcomed the passage of the law. Bilal Abdullah, representing the Progressive Socialist Party, stated that the amnesty law is not intended to favor any single sect, asserting that it aims to move past a period where Sunnis felt unfairly targeted by the regime, security agencies, and certain judicial rulings.
Supporters of detained Islamists argue that their convictions occurred during a period of increased political influence for Hezbollah, which they claim led to biased targeting of Sunni Muslims by security and judicial institutions. They also cite allegations of unfair trials and excessive pre-trial detention due to overburdened court systems.
Social media videos depicted Islamist prisoners at Roumieh prison celebrating the law's approval. Conversely, families of Lebanese soldiers killed in past incidents have expressed strong opposition, deeming the law a profound injustice and insisting that those responsible for their loved ones' deaths should remain incarcerated.
Civil society groups and reform advocates have voiced criticism. Activist and lawyer Nizar Saghieh, co-founder of the watchdog group Legal Agenda, argued that genuine justice stems from accountability and institutional reform, not general amnesties. Saghieh criticized lawmakers who framed the amnesty as a form of justice without implementing necessary structural reforms, noting that military courts continue to operate as before.