Questions from the "Socialist" Party Regarding the Violation of the Dog River Course

The Progressive Socialist Party expressed that "with the exacerbation of the insurmountable situation of blatant infringement on public river properties and archaeological sites along the course of the Dog River by an 'extraordinarily supported' tourism project, which has violated the environment, heritage, and public property." In this context, the Media Commission of the party raised a series of questions directed at those concerned and public opinion: "First, who granted the license for such a violation, and why did the Minister of Energy and Water say he would withdraw his ministry's approval, only to reverse and keep it? Who requested him to put the law in the drawer and for whose benefit? Second, where is the Ministry of Environment in relation to what is happening, and is it sufficient for the minister to issue a statement or send a letter? Why hasn’t he acted in his legal and moral capacity before the courts? Why is there not even minimal coordination between the relevant ministries and ministers? Third, what is the reason for the Culture Ministry's delay in fulfilling its duty to protect the sites that have been marred by the project? Fourth, why did Judge Ghada Aoun accept to withdraw from the case after she had prioritized it and claimed she would address the violation? Does her claim to uphold public property only apply to one case and not another? Why does she comply with the request to recuse herself in this specific case and reject compliance with all requests for her to recuse herself in other cases?" The statement continued, "These are questions that truly do not require answers, as the violation is evident, and the perpetrators are known by identity and affiliation and are entangled in conflicts of interest. What is needed, then, is to uncover the truth for public opinion and to penalize anyone who dares to violate public property." It concluded: "It may be useful to remind of the Progressive Socialist Party's historical project regarding public river and maritime properties, the necessity of applying the law, and the collection of fees for occupying public properties. Is there anyone among those concerned in this government who genuinely cares for the state?"