The media office of Prime Minister Najib Mikati issued the following statement: "The National Free Movement is waging an outright campaign against Prime Minister Najib Mikati, through various media outlets, regarding the diplomatic transfers of several third-class employees that Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants Abdallah Bou Habib has decided to implement. As usual, they are using the issue of the President's powers to justify their campaign and imply to public opinion that there is a targeting of a segment of the Lebanese people. However, this time, the campaign directly targeted the minister representing 'the movement' in the government, who, along with the other movement ministers, boycotts Cabinet sessions. To clarify the truth and prevent further misinformation, we emphasize the following points:
First: Minister of Foreign Affairs informed the Prime Minister in advance that he was in the process of making some transfers in the third class, in accordance with the system of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants, which is a specific legislative text considered the strongest in the hierarchy of laws. The first paragraph of Article 22 of this system states: 'A diplomatic or consular employee may, at any time, be transferred to the central administration or to another post abroad. However, the maximum legal duration for staying abroad is ten years for first-class employees and seven years for second and third-class employees. The government may allow first-class employees to remain abroad for an additional five years through decrees issued by the Cabinet.'
Second: It appears from the above that the decision regarding the transfers of third-class employees in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is within the minister's powers, based solely on the proposal of the Secretary-General of the ministry, and does not require submission to the Cabinet. However, during the caretaker period, the Prime Minister issued a circular requiring prior approval of decisions before they are issued, including diplomatic formations in the third class, which do not originally require Cabinet approval.
Third: Minister Bou Habib’s decision involved sending 32 third-class diplomats who had spent four years in the central administration abroad, while the law indicates that their maximum stay should be two years. Conversely, the minister decided to return 32 third-class diplomats from abroad to the central administration, relying on the major criterion that they had spent four years abroad. We reiterate that this matter is strictly within the minister's authority and does not impose additional burdens on the treasury.
Fourth: The Prime Minister is not surprised by this campaign raised by the 'National Free Movement,' as this approach has become known, but the fundamental question arises based on some known and undisclosed facts: If the Minister of Foreign Affairs had agreed to 'the movement's' interventions concerning some names mentioned in his decision, would this campaign have been launched against him and the Prime Minister? Consequently, let those who initiated and are leading this campaign prove whether the Prime Minister intervened concerning any of the names listed in the decision.
In conclusion: The solution to all the existing issues lies in the Lebanese people supporting one another and cooperating to navigate this phase away from negativity, and in electing a new president of the republic. The 'National Free Movement' should fulfill its parliamentary duty instead of contributing to obstructing the election of the president and targeting the Prime Minister merely for continuing to lead the government in preserving State institutions and their minimum available management, and in handling State and citizen affairs."
In response, the National Free Movement replied to Mikati's statement via Twitter: "There is no need to elucidate the constitutional violations carried out by the caretaker Prime Minister and his overreach on the powers of the President, culminating in his desperate attempts for first-class appointments. Mikati’s statement condemns him with the contradictions and fallacies it carries, reflecting hostile intentions and actions towards the constitution, the covenant, and the position of the presidency.”
