The report tackled the Capital Control Law, or the law “restricting the transfer of capital,” which collapsed during the session held by the General Committee of Parliament on March 28, 2022. It was thus sent back to the government to be redrafted before being sent to Parliament, which Najib Mikati’s government did on March 30, 2022, as per Lebanese media reports.
The law “restricting the transfer of capital” known as the Capital Control Law should have been enacted in the fall of 2019, i.e. at the beginning of the acute financial crisis in Lebanon, in order to freeze the withdrawal of funds in hard currency from the Lebanese banks, regulate the relationship between the depositors and the banks and prevent the smuggling of funds abroad.
Since then, many versions of the law “restricting the transfer of funds” have been put forward, the last of which was the version rejected by the Lebanese Parliament on March 29, 2022, after the Lebanese government introduced amendments to it, which it said were based on the request of the International Monetary Fund.
This version, which was rejected by the Lebanese Parliament, is the object of debate because, according to the journalist specialized in economic affairs, Sabine Oueiss, it is “the version amended by the government”:
Read the version
Indeed, Oueiss said she acquired a different version of the Capital Control Law on March 24, 2022, i.e. four days before Parliament rejected the version above that was ultimately presented to it on March 28, 2022:
Read the earlier version
This earlier version was widely circulated on social media and Oueiss checked its authenticity repeatedly, through her relationship with the economic committee in Parliament, industrialists and various officials. But it was recanted and suddenly replaced with the final version that was rejected by Parliament on March 28. When Oueiss asked why a different draft was being circulated, she was told it was a “mistake” in the translation by Google. Oueiss, who we asked directly about her report, said that her “confirmed information indicates that the leaked version was written by a high-ranking Lebanese official in the government, who is the main negotiator with the IMF.”
The title of Oueiss’s report in Annahar points to a mistake in the translation of the version presented to the Lebanese Parliament, which led to its rejection. However, the facts and a comparison between the leaked March 24 version and the March 28 version that was rejected by Parliament reveal the existence of critical differences between the two versions and their clauses.
Journalist Sabine Oueiss confirmed this to us: “The existence of a different translation is not the reason that pushed Parliament to reject the law. This was rather due to its clauses, which were amended by the Lebanese government.” So, why did she choose that title for her report? According to Oueiss, “the title was sarcastic and based on the response of a Lebanese official, who told me that the law was rejected by Parliament because of an error in translation, which is not true.” Oueiss added: “The title was meant to be sarcastic to shed light on the turmoil sweeping the concerned authorities. In my opinion, the version leaked on WhatsApp groups and social media is the real one and was indeed drafted by a high-ranking government official in English before being translated into Arabic. But it was revoked due to the wave of criticisms it generated among the economic committees, the industrialists, the ordinary citizens, and the depositors.”
In fact, Oueiss pointed to that in her aforementioned report in Annahar, as she indicated that the “draft was leaked two days before being transferred [to Parliament], without any governmental side adopting it, just as it happened with the leaking of the clause related to the division of the financial losses, as featured in the government’s economic and financial recovery plan. Hence, just like the government disowned the latter clause, which places 55% of the losses on the depositors’ shoulders, the same happened with the hybrid draft before it was snatched by the prime minister’s economic team, which introduced amendments to it based on the remarks it had gotten and stamped with the signature of member of the team Deputy Nicholas Nahas.” Oueiss then added in her piece: “The only justification for all the confusion that accompanied the publishing of the draft is that it was filled with mistakes which resulted from a bad translation of the original English through Google Translate!” She continued: “Information circulated regarding the fact that the IMF did not propose the leaked formulation, knowing that blaming the leaked version on a bad translation on Google is a poor excuse, especially when compared to the draft being discussed by the joint committees, seeing as how there is a wide discrepancy between the two texts, which is not justified by the translation [only].”
After the Lebanese Parliament rejected the version presented to it on March 28, 2022, the law was not presented to the IMF delegation that visited Lebanon on March 31. Consequently, the law was not enacted as was hoped for by Najib Mikati’s government, which claimed that the IMF requested these recommendations. After the parliamentary committees rejected the draft, they issued a recommendation saying they will send it back to the government so that it redrafts it, amends it and issues it in a legally sound way as a draft law from the government since the previous formula in which the draft law was sent – as per Oueiss – was a mere proposal.
As such, a new version was drawn up and ratified by the government and was again sent to the parliamentary committees to be studied before being sent to the General Committee.
Fact-Checking Assessment: False
Google’s translation of the leaked Capital Control draft law had nothing to do with its rejection by the parliamentary committee, and blaming the rejection on Google Translate is evidence, in one sense, of the governmental turmoil reigning over Lebanon. This was clear in Sabine Oueiss’s report, which indicated: (…) “Blaming the leaked version on a bad translation on Google is a poor excuse, especially when compared to the draft being discussed by the joint committee, seeing as how there is a wide discrepancy between the two texts, which is not justified by the translation.”
Unfortunately, the headline for Oueiss’s piece was meant to be sarcastic – as per Oueiss – but could mislead readers, especially those who usually settle for reading the headline and not the whole content.
