PAS MP Sergiu Litvinenco disputed the Prosecutor General’s ordinance to reject his application concerning the attempt to usurp the state power. He considers the prosecutors should investigate the case with maximum responsibility and seriousness as this is an attempt to undermine constitutional order, not an ordinary theft, IPN reports.

“As no one was punished for Plahotniuc’s attempt to usurp the power in June 2019, Dodon decided to also try and tried. Only owing to the citizens of this country, both Plahotniuc in 2019 and Dodon in 2021 failed,” the MP posted on social media.

Sergiu Litvinenco noted that he cannot explain the lack of a reasonable reaction from the prosecutor’s office to the ‘secret’ meeting held last Sunday by deputy prospector general Ruslan Popov and “the usurper of the post of constitutional judge” Boris Lupașcu. According to him, initially Ruslan Popov denied having met with Boris Lupașcu, but then confirmed that the meeting took place, but said that this was ‘accidental’ and there was no problem as long as the application against Lupașcu was ‘received’ on Monday.

According to the PAS MP, Ruslan Popov lied when he said that he didn’t meet with Boris Lupașcu and this is already a major problem. Also, an ‘accidental’ meeting cannot last for 40 minutes, especially at a filling station. Thirdly, the argument that the application was received on Monday is not pertinent as everyone knew that there was already a document featuring Boris Lupașcu. It is yet interesting to know what the two discussed there and if there is a connection between that meeting and the subsequent actions, noted Sergiu Litvinenco.

The Prosecutor General refused to accept the application by which MPs Sergiu Litvinenco and Virgiliu Pâslariuc asked to take legal action over usurpation of power in the state after the MPs of the Party of Socialists and the For Moldova platform revoked the Parliament’s decision by which Domnica Manole was appointed CC judge and adopted another decision to name Boris Lupașcu in her place. The PGO argued the MPs’ application does not meet the requirements concerning the form and content of a document by which offenses stipulated in the Penal Procedure Code are denounced, while the circumstances invoked by the applicants do not produce reasonable suspicions as to the commission of the denounced or other offenses.