_Recent events in Beirut have placed the International Monetary Fund (IMF) at the centre of a fresh controversy—one that mirrors the Fund’s troubled involvement in Mozambique’s Tuna bond scandal nearly a decade ago. If Lebanon’s institutional credibility is to be restored, the global lender must be consistent with its own standards. _
The IMF is pressuring Lebanon’s Ministry of Finance to ignore a $16.5 bn overdraft at the central bank—a USD account established exclusively for Eurobond proceeds, meticulously tracked and verified by audits, internal and external, including the Fund’s own staff reports. Yet, while in Mozambique, the Fund demanded the full accounting of ‘hidden’ debts contracted for fishing and maritime security, in Lebanon who faces an existential debt reckoning, the IMF is siding with those seeking to evade accountability.
Back in Maputo, the IMF suspended support when $2 bn of secret debts surfaced. It demanded full transparency and prosecution, and Mozambique was forced to admit and service these questionable debts, regardless of their legality or public benefit. Now, IMF officials are arguing precisely the opposite for Lebanon, deeming the overdraft fictitious, and pushing for its removal from official statistics solely for the optics of sustainability.
Context & Stakeholder Impact
For Lebanon, this stance risks eroding the very confidence the IMF claims to restore. The central bank, led by Governor Karim Souaid, maintains its account’s legitimacy—backed by signatures, audits, and a complete transaction history. To downplay this debt now not only signals a double standard, but could pave the way for further instability, including a pressure toward gold liquidation to secure future support. In the end, public confidence hinges on accountability and truth—qualities seemingly undermined by the Fund’s political expedience.
To repair credibility—in Lebanon or anywhere—the IMF must commit to consistent standards. It cannot be both judge and adversary, nor can it pick and choose which debts to legitimize based on expediency.
Lebanon’s path forward depends on forensic investigation and legal scrutiny into the overdraft, and the poor disclosures at the time of issuing securities, not on international pressure to conceal reality. The lessons of Mozambique are clear: accountability is the only path to institutional recovery.
Also read:
Lebanon’s Karim Souaid and Argentina’s Javier Milei: Reformers Navigating Financial Crossroads