Local sources have told Al-Modon that opposition activists are organizing protests in response to a recent settlement between the Syrian government and businessman Mohammed Hamsho—a longtime ally of the Assad regime. Demonstrations are expected in Daraya, Jobar, and Qaboun, neighborhoods whose infrastructure was devastated in recent years, with much of the destruction widely blamed on Hamsho’s enterprises.
On Wednesday, Hamsho announced on Facebook that he had signed a comprehensive agreement with the new government, describing it as fully compliant with “recognized legal and official frameworks.” He said the deal aims to “regularize and stabilize” his legal standing and heralds “a new chapter,” pointedly sidestepping any reckoning with his past actions.
Public Fury and Plans for Legal Accountability
Hussam Makkiya, a Daraya-based activist, told Al-Modon that residents were shocked by the announcement, viewing the agreement as effectively granting Hamsho a clean slate. He said outrage among locals and revolutionary figures is especially intense given the widespread destruction of thousands of homes—and the systematic stripping of metal from rubble in what became one of the largest recycling operations in recent Syrian history, allegedly orchestrated under Hamsho’s oversight.
Makkiya added that activists in Daraya and other heavily damaged areas are coordinating efforts to file a collective lawsuit against Hamsho in Syrian courts. The suit will seek accountability for the looting and demolition of private property and demand financial restitution for victims. Residents argue that while the state may waive its own claims, it has no authority to extinguish individual civil claims to justice or compensation.
He also cited verified reports linking Hamsho’s companies to the demolition of civilian homes across the Damascus countryside, the extraction of rebar from reinforced concrete, and the resale of recycled rubble on open markets—activities that profited from the displacement and dispossession of ordinary Syrians.
A Settlement That Undermines Justice
Politician Mohammed Shukri al-Khaled criticized the timing of the deal, noting it was finalized before the Higher Commission for Transitional Justice could even begin its work. He argued the agreement appears designed to preemptively shield Hamsho—and others like him—from future prosecution by declaring his legal status “resolved.”
Speaking to Al-Modon, al-Khaled called such financial settlements with former regime-linked tycoons a “blatant violation of victims’ rights” and a profound insult to the suffering endured by Syrians over more than a decade of war. He insisted there is no legitimate justification beyond the government’s desperate need for cash amid a deepening fiscal crisis. With international economic channels largely closed off, the state seems determined to reactivate networks once controlled by regime insiders—leveraging their capital, connections, and insider knowledge, even as it seizes portions of their assets.
Yasser al-Shalati, director of investigative mechanisms at the Association of Free Syrian Lawyers, said the Hamsho deal falls under the Anti-Corruption Committee’s newly launched “voluntary disclosure program.” But he warned the initiative appears tailor-made to facilitate impunity rather than accountability.
In an interview with Al-Modon, al-Shalati stressed that the program does not—and cannot—absolve Hamsho or others of potential liability for war crimes, including financing the Assad regime and profiting from the trade in rubble harvested from destroyed Syrian homes. Former employees of Hamsho’s firms have previously admitted to these practices.
“The real danger,” al-Shalati said, “is that this settlement treats Hamsho as if he were merely a tax evader, when in fact he—and figures like Rami Makhlouf or the Qaterji family—are war profiteers who bankrolled the regime and participated directly in the plunder of displaced families’ homes.”
He also underscored a critical legal reality: Hamsho remains under international sanctions due to his documented support for the former regime—a designation that will complicate any future dealings involving him and the Syrian government.
Al-Shalati concluded that this case casts a long shadow over Syria’s fragile transitional justice process. For that process to retain any credibility, he argued, it must be paired with a robust judicial track that thoroughly investigates all allegations—from illicit enrichment to active regime collaboration—and authorizes the lawful seizure of ill-gotten assets. Any recovered funds, he insisted, must flow into the public treasury through transparent, accountable channels—not backroom deals that sacrifice justice for short-term revenue.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
