“The United States and Israel stand behind the assassination of Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. This assassination has led to Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon, and not Resolution 1559,” MP Jamil al-Sayyed said during a hearing session at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
In the wake of the session and as he left the court, Sayyed said “the International Tribunal had hidden, during the prosecution, the evidence of ‘false witnesses’ (…) and the judiciary in Lebanon had no authority. Some have contributed to the concealment of evidence, and I cannot answer questions asked at the Office of Prosecution that hid the evidence and participated in the protection of the false witnesses.”
“An argument took place inside the court and I had to leave,” he explained, noting that he has sent a formal letter to Attorney General, Saeed Mirza, containing all these flaws, mistakes and fabrications.
“I come to court regardless of the people who are in charge of it. They are mere employees who get paid and have salaries. The court is sheer political, in the end,” he said, giving the example that “In Iraq, George W. Bush and Tony Blair killed 1.5 million Iraqis under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, and displaced 10 million others. Do they not deserve to be tried?”
Blaming the US and Israel for Hariri’s assassination, MP Sayyed said that Hariri, through the elections and the extension of the President of the Republic’s term, was giving legitimacy to the Syrian presence and [to President Emile] Lahoud and the resistance. All of this could have been enough reason for Israel to assassinate him. (…) They also tried to assassinate Marwan Hamadeh and provoke Walid Jumblatt, and so it happened.”
“I came to court to defend two things: the right of the Lebanese in truth, and my right, personally,” he added, stressing the need for compelling evidence.
It is to note that, at the end of the session, Sayyed approached the prosecutor’s representative to shake his hand, but the latter refused, so he told him “You are impolite and unworthy of respect.”
Judge Re considered this to be a “libel against the representative of the prosecutor.”