After President Maia Sandu following the August 10 meeting of the Supreme Security Council said that no progress is seen in bringing back and holding accountable persons involved in abuses, illegalities and grand corruption who fled Moldova, the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) reacted with an ambiguous text on which ADEPT executive director Igor Boța commented for IPN. According to the expert, both of the sides bear a part of the blame in this “bizarre conflict”.
Contacted by IPN for a comment, anticorruption expert Mariana Kalughin said she has reservations about the performance of both of the opponents: “The Prosecutor General’s Office, which is part of the Judiciary, probably tries to remind the other two powers, the Legislature and the Executive, of the principle of separation and cooperation of powers. Article 6 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova provides that the legislative, executive and judiciary powers are separate and cooperate in the fulfillment of the prerogatives they enjoy in accordance with the Constitution. The Prosecutor General’s Office perhaps tries to remind of legal responsibility for interference in justice and prosecution, in accordance with Article 303 of the Penal Code,” said the expert.
According to her, PGO should have a more explicit position if it wants to win the struggle against the other two powers with not at all refined habits. The current political class indeed has poor understanding of the rule of law principle, as PGO said. “To my mind, the Judiciary, including the Prosecutor General’s Office, plays the role of an invented internal enemy. The Bolshevik struggle, or revolutionary one if you like more, against this veils the government’s capacity to propose and implement a sustainable economic country program,” stated Mariana Kalughin.
