The lawyer representing the expelled student’s guardian filed a lawsuit against the school administration, demanding the student’s return to the classroom, invoking his right to education. This led to a judicial course that diverged from the usual approach. In the course of the case, it became clear that M.H.’s father is Bilal Hamad, an advisor to former Prime Minister Najib Mikati, while his legal representative is Mark Habayka, the lawyer of former Banque du Liban Governor Riad Salameh and a frequent guest on MTV.
The judge’s decision to reinstate M.H. sparked widespread controversy, as it was seen as falling outside the scope of her jurisdiction and because it relied on the right to education rather than focusing on the primary reason cited by the school for the expulsion, namely, misconduct.
Did Hoteit Overstep Her Authority?
The school administration took a final decision to expel the student after forming a committee, in accordance with the school’s internal regulations, which concluded that the student had violated school rules. The committee held that the administration has the right to expel a student for misconduct, even if it occurs outside the school premises, as long as it negatively affects the reputation of the school, its administration, and its students.
As for Judge Rasha Hoteit’s jurisdiction, the decision is considered to fall outside the scope of her authority, as it went beyond the framework of “removing an infringement on legitimate rights.” This procedure is typically invoked before the judiciary, particularly an urgent matters judge, to request swift measures aimed at lifting a clear and manifest infringement, such as the unlawful occupation of property, provided that the right and the infringement are evident and that there is no serious dispute.
In the student’s case, and since the judge herself acknowledged the existence of ambiguity in the facts, she should have referred the lawsuit to the competent court, which is responsible for adjudicating the case after conducting the necessary investigations.
The Right to Education
Judge Rasha Hoteit based her decision to reinstate M.H. (17 years old) to the school on the principle of compulsory education and the prohibition of depriving any child of this right.
However, a legal source who requested anonymity for personal reasons explained to Daraj that expelling a student from a specific school does not constitute a violation of the right to education, even if the student is enrolled in the British or IB program. Expulsion does not mean depriving the student of continuing their education, but rather allows them to pursue it at another school. Accordingly, the right to education is safeguarded by ensuring the possibility of enrolling in an alternative educational institution, not by forcing the reinstatement of a student to the same school that imposed a disciplinary measure in accordance with its internal regulations.
The legal source also stressed that Lebanese law does not guarantee compulsory education once a student has surpassed the intermediate level, emphasizing that while the right to education is sacred, the judiciary does not have the right to interfere with a school’s internal regulations.
“Side” Issues
Daraj learned that M.H. used the video of his assault on the Syrian young man as a means of intimidation on more than one occasion, one of which reached the Beirut Central Police Station. This came after he assaulted a fellow student at another school, who had described the beating incident as inhumane.
Following a verbal altercation and a physical clash between the two youths, security forces intervened and referred them to the police station. The judge chose to handle the matter amicably, considering that both parties were minors and that there was no need to refer them to the competent judiciary.
As a result, the school considered that the student had committed two main offenses under school regulations, assault and incitement, leading to the final expulsion decision based on “third-level disciplinary violations,” which are among the most serious breaches affecting the rules of school conduct.
