On 10, 11, and 12 February, and 3 March, Mr Ghaleb El-Chammaa, a very close friend and business associate of former Prime Minister
Rafik Hariri, gave evidence. Mr El-Chamma testified, among others, about Hariri’s
relationship with Syria and the Syrian Presidents throughout the 1990s,
including meetings with President Bashar Al-Assad, and payments made by Hariri to Rustom Ghazaleh.
Hariri and Mr
El-Chammaa were close friends and they came from the same neighbourhood. Mr
El-Chamma accompanied Hariri on most of his trips outside Lebanon and on his
way to important meetings, including Hariri’s visits to the Syrian president.
Upon his return to Lebanon in 1990, Mr El-Chammaa became involved in setting up
the group that provided charity work on behalf of Hariri. Mr El-Chammaa and Hariri shared the dream of ending the war and developing and rebuilding
Lebanon.
[screenshot of Mr El-Chammaa testifying on 11 February 2015]
Mr El-Chammaa tells
the court that the adoption of Resolution 1559 led all Lebanese people,
including Hariri, to believe it was time to implement the Taif agreement, including
the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon. According to the witness, with the death
of the Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad, the relationship of Hariri with
Syria changed. The Syrian security organs became the Syrian representatives in
Lebanon, with the highest security official in Lebanon being Rustom Ghazaleh. Mr
El-Chamma gave evidence that Mr Ghazaleh reported directly to President
Al-Assad.
Mr El-Chammaa
testifies about the visits by Hariri to President Al-Assad in 2003 and 2004,
and the communication exchanged between Hariri and the Syrian authorities.
The witness extensively describes a meeting between President Bashar Al-Assad
and Hariri, in the presence of three Syrian security officials: Rustom
Ghazaleh, Ghazi Kanaan and Mohammed Khallouf. According to Mr El-Chammaa these three
officials were in charge of implementing the Syrian wishes in Lebanon. The
meeting occurred in 2003 and is described as a turning point in terms of the
relationship with Hariri. Hariri told his good
friend Mr El-Chammaa that the tone of the meeting was harsh and that President Al-Assad said "that he was the one to decide who would be president of the
Republic of Lebanon", and that "Hariri is behaving in a way that is contrary to
Syria’s interests and that he is inciting the Lebanese people against the
Syrian presence". Hariri was a shareholder
of An-Nahar newspaper, and President Al-Assad asked him to sell his shares. Hariri told Mr El-Chammaa that he was very upset with the presence of the
security officials, and that the meeting was a direct threat to him, to prevent
him from achieving his goal, namely seeking a candidate for the presidential
elections in Lebanon. Hariri further told him on their way back to Beirut that he was
humiliated and that the Syrians should not deal with him in such a way. Mr El-Chammaa asked Hariri: "Why are you
staying in Lebanon? Why don’t you leave Lebanon? And why don’t you leave this
kind of unacceptable situation?" Hariri replied that he is not only afraid
about what will happen to him, but also about what will happen to those who are
close to him.
Mr El-Chammaa also tells the Court about a
meeting between Hariri, Rustom Ghazaleh and Charles Ayoub. Charles Ayoub is
the owner and editor of the newspaper Diyar, which is pro-Syrian. He had a
good relationship with the Syrians and he was in contact with Hariri. The aim of the meeting was the idea to calm down the tension that
was prevailing at that time; Hariri was determined to go ahead with his plan
to run his own election and to have his own electoral list in all Lebanese
Regions. Of course, Rustom Ghazaleh was not happy with this plan. According to
polls and studies Hariri would have been able to secure the majority in the parliament, and this majority would enable him to form a cabinet that would
serve Lebanon's national interests. This way the Syrians would lose many
channels of interference or control over Lebanon and its territory. The Syrians
demanded that Hariri would limit his electoral list to certain areas in
Lebanon. However, Hariri made up his mind, and did not listen to their
request. Hariri was fully determined that he would run his own
elections.
The witness also
testifies about the pressure exerted by the Syrians on Hariri to support the
extension of President Lahoud, the decreasing of Hariri’s hope in changing
the position of Syria vis-à-vis Lebanon, Mr Hariri’s contacts with the
opposition, and Mr Hariri’s meetings with foreign heads of states. According to
the Prosecution, the relevance of this last item is background evidence showing
“the Prime Minister’s emergence on the world stage as a figure of some
importance”. The witness further discusses meetings of Mr Hariri with the
Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah. Mr Hariri wanted to
communicate with Hezbollah and engage them in his attempt to change Lebanon.
Further, Mr El-Chammaa
describes his own visits to Syrian officials, including General Rustom
Ghazaleh, to relay messages from Hariri. Mr El-Chammaa also arranged for
payments from Hariri upon the request of Mr Ghazaleh. This included monthly
payments to Mr Ghazaleh from 1993 until 2005 that went up to 67,000 USD as well
as separate cash payments as high as 250,000 USD. This was done to "preserve
the relationship with him". The witness also remembers that "Abou-Tareq, one day before the
assassination, on the evening of that day, he told me that he gave to Rustom Ghazaleh this additional payment" - as Mr Ghazaleh claimed
he had not yet received his monthly payment - and that Ghazaleh had said some
very insulting and humiliating words to Abou-Tareq, which had scared him. Hariri
was also very upset about this, and this was the last time the witness saw
Hariri. This evidence seems to point to a link between Mr Ghazaleh and the attack
on Hariri, although the exact implications remain unclear. During his cross-examination, Mr Khalil, defence counsel representing Mr Merhi, suggested that the Prosecution is trying to imply that Mr Ghazaleh knew about the
assassination and therefore he cashed the amount of money for two months instead of
one. The Defence questions this theory as Mr Ghazaleh certainly would have warned Hariri
in view of losing his main source of income.
The Defence further questions the witness about
his knowledge about the relationship between Hariri and Hezbollah, and the
absence of Wissam El-Hassan, a security officer and the secretary of Hariri
who regularly accompanied Hariri in his car, on the day of the terrorist
attack. The witness does not remember most of the details asked for because of the amount of time that has passed since the events. The same goes for the details from his UNICCC
statement of August 2006, about which he’s extensively questioned by the
Defence, and which seems to contain quite some facts that are based on hearsay.
No comments:
Post a Comment