Some experts consider the removal of parliamentary immunity is an opportunity for rooting out corruption, while others think the immunity is not an impediment to investigating the MPs. Contradictory opinions on the issue were stated in the program “Fabrika” on Publika TV channel, IPN reports.
Victor Juc, vice director of the Institute of Legal and Political Research of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova, is for keeping parliamentary immunity. “I think parliamentary immunity must be kept, especially because the power obstructs the opposition in the Republic of Moldova. In the Republic of Moldova they can first make arrests and afterward provide evidence,” he stated.
Political analyst Corneliu Ciurea also considers that parliamentary immunity must be preserved. “Let’s take the case of Filat for example. Even if he enjoyed immunity, he is now under arrest, while Ilan Shor, who didn’t benefit from immunity, is free. I think the immunity plays no role if someone must be arrested,” he said.
On the other hand, Teodor Carnat, a member of the Supreme Council of Magistracy, believes the annulment of immunity is an urgent necessity. “The immunity is an obstacle to conducting investigations, especially into cases of corruption. All the people are equal before the law and should answer for their deeds,” he stated.
