Riad Salamé's dismissal of charges: the rule of law over rumors

By Antoine Menassa*

A few days ago, the Beirut Indictment Chamber issued a dismissal ruling in favor of former Banque du Liban Governor Riad Salamé, in the case stemming from a complaint filed in June 2021 by businessman Talal Abou-Ghazaleh. The complainant had accused Salamé of issuing circulars that altered the liberal economic system, concealing the true state of the banks' finances, and conspiring with those banks to misappropriate depositors' funds.

In its decision handed down on July 14, 2026, the Indictment Chamber found that the constituent elements of the alleged offense had not been established. Applying the principles of criminal law with impartiality and independence, it placed the case back within its strictly legal framework and brought the proceedings against the former Governor to a close. This decision has been welcomed as an illustration of the role of justice, which must be guided not by public sentiment or pressure, but solely by the law and the evidence.

It also reflects the ability of the Lebanese judiciary, despite the crises gripping the country, to uphold the rule of law and the fundamental principles of justice. Beyond the specifics of this case, the decision averts the risk of a legal precedent that could have led to property-related offenses — such as theft, breach of trust, embezzlement, or fraud — being equated with constitutional violations, without any legal basis and in contradiction with the essential principles of criminal law.

In legal terms, a dismissal ruling is neither an emotional exoneration nor a political statement. It is a judicial decision that ends proceedings when evidence is insufficient or when the legal elements of an offense have not been established. It represents one of the fundamental guarantees of a modern justice system.

The media coverage of this case, however, raises serious questions. In 2021, when the accusations were made public, they received massive media attention. Television channels, newspapers, and news websites widely reported the story, generating countless headlines and fueling a debate that frequently led to Riad Salamé being prematurely condemned. Many seemed to forget that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle, one that can only be overturned by a final judicial ruling.

Now that the courts have issued a dismissal for lack of constituent elements of the offense, the media response appears far more muted. It is as though decisions that restore the facts generate less interest than the accusations themselves. This contrast raises questions about the role of the media. Some outlets gave extensive coverage to the accusations, yet afforded far less visibility to the judicial ruling that dismissed them — as if news only acquires value through scandal, while court decisions that restore rights are pushed to the sidelines.

Yet justice is not measured by the intensity of accusations, but by the strength of evidence and adherence to the rule of law. The Beirut Indictment Chamber's decision is a reminder that the primacy of law must always prevail over rumor, and that a person's dignity cannot be sacrificed by media verdicts rendered before those of the courts.

One question ultimately remains: to what extent can a person reclaim their reputation after being cleared, when the media's condemnation has already left a lasting mark on public opinion? Justice only fulfills its true purpose if dismissal and acquittal decisions receive coverage comparable to that given to accusations. For the truth deserves as much attention as suspicion, and fairness as much focus as scandal.

*Founding President of the Association of Lebanese Business People in France (HALFA)