The Law governing the Prosecutor General’s Office is not working, as the Prosecutor General is serving the interests of the government, considers a group of ACUM/PAS&DA lawmakers who initiated public consultations over a series of amendments to the Law.
Attending the consultations, PAS leader Maia Sandu said the bill is a solution to breaking the “vicious circle of oligarchic control” over the public prosecution system. According to her, the Prosecutor General’s Office has become “an instrument of political and economic coercion employed to get rid of competitors”. Maia Sandu also believes key staff in the prosecution system have been appointed on criteria of political loyalty.
“Obviously, no law, no matter how good, can ensure independence and professionalism when people responsible for the implementation of this law have intentions other than those laid out in the law”, said Maia Sandu.
DA leader Andrei Năstase said the current Law is not respected. “The incumbent Prosecutor General (Eduard Harunjen) is a long-time man of the system. He served the past governments, the Communist regime, and he serves the now. We suggest that the positions in the Prosecutor's Office are instead filled on a competitive basis”, said Andrei Năstase.
According to MP Sergiu Litvinenco, the prosecution system has had some long-overdue items on its reform agenda since as far back as 1995. ACUM intends to redress that by proposing seven key provisions. One that stands out is a provision allowing a non-citizen, for example a European professional, to be appointed as Prosecutor General.
The process of selecting the top prosecutor should not be the exclusive prerogative of the Supreme Council of Prosecutors (CSP), says Litvinenco, but should also involve civil society members and even international experts. An enlarged CSP that is elected in a transparent manner is also sought.
The bill was registered with Parliament’s Secretariat but it cannot advance to the next lawmaking stage until a Speaker is elected.
After the event, the Prosecutor General’s Office issued a statement describing the bill as “yet another attempt to involve the PGO into some parties’ political battles”. The PGO suggested the amendments are unnecessary as “the current Law, adopted in August 2016, was drafted by an interdepartmental group of jurists, headed by a national NGO; it passed through Parliament with broad consensus and benefited from international expert review, including from the Venice Commission”.
