 |
|
| Dionis Cenuşa | |
The justice sector reform is crucial for the whole ‘package’ of transformations included in the European agenda. Viable justice ensures the functioning of the law and helps maintain the institutions in a robust and integral state. But these aspects are rather absent from the Moldovan reality. For this particular reason, the idea of identifying a European prosecutor who would bring things in Moldovan justice in order was supported by public opinion.
Though the Government of Moldova avoided to invite a “European prosecutor”, even if it promised to, this will ultimately benefit from the services of a former anticorruption prosecutor from Romanian, called Mariana Alexandru, within the justice sector reform that is supported by the EU. It is commendable that the European officials selected a person who dealt with anticorruption cases started against high-ranking Romanian officials. However, it seems that the first step was taken improperly as Mariana Alexandru is covered in suspicions deriving from her sudden leaving of the Romanian judicial system, while the EU failed to eliminate them when it accepted this candidate.
It is evident that the former DNA prosecutor can contribute to advancing the justice sector reform, but she cannot replace the national authorities. Her mandate is limited and based on technical counseling and recommendation formulation duties. That’s why the expectations of her actions should be reserved and she shouldn’t be endowed with ‘Messianic’ qualities.
Just a “European expert”
It should be noted that the ex-DNA prosecutor will be involved in the justice sector reform as a ‘non-key’ expert, within a technical assistance project of the EU. Consequently, the European expert will have a clear set of technical duties. Among these duties are to help improve the pre-judicial investigation capacities of the Prosecutor General’s Office and to provide juridical services for the National Anticorruption Center and the Ministry of the Interior.
Consultant, not yet prosecutor
The former DNA prosecutor will serve as a consultant and will be unable to intervene in the activity of the beneficiary institutions – the Prosecutor General’s Office, the National Anticorruption Center and the Ministry of the Interior. It is presumed that she will be able to examine and review sensitive cases, but it’s not known if the government coalition will provide access to all the cases, including the more difficult ones, such as that regarding the ‘theft of the billion’ . We will yet see how the EU (re)acts if this European consultant identifies irregularities in the studied cases.
Limited time or not?
The former DNA prosecutor is to work in Moldova within the justice sector reform for only 35 workdays. It is thus questionable whether she will have enough time to take the Moldovan institutions out of their comfort area. If considering the dysfunctions existing in the institutions owing to the politicization and chronic political instability in the country, 35 days is a very short term for achieving substantial results.
What shall we do with the image of the ex-DNA prosecutor?
Evidently, the context in which Mariana Alexandru was chosen and hired was polluted by the suspicions about the sudden rupture in her relations with the Romanian judicial system of which she formed part. That’s why the EU Delegation to Moldova should have intervened to remove any suspicion and criticism related to the integrity of the former DNA prosecutor.
Instead of conclusion
The selection of an ex-DNA prosecutor for the justice sector reform in Moldova is obviously a good idea. However, there are a series of aspects that could prevent the implementation of this initiative. Thus, the activity of the former DNA prosecutor will depend a lot on the openness that will be shown by the Prosecutor General’s Office, the National Anticorruption Center and the Ministry of the Interior and by the political forces that control these institutions. Also, the limited time allotted to the European expert could also cause pressure on her and could powerfully influence the end results. Moreover, the European expert is unable to influence directly the decision-making process at the three aforementioned institutions as this is the responsibility of the sovereign state authorities.
So, regardless of the anticorruption instincts of the ex-prosecutor of Romania’s National Anticorruption Directorate, their utilization could be hampered in Moldova. Consequently, the public opinion’s expectations of this former prosecutor must be realistic and must take into account the fact that a European expert with technical powers can no way replace the country’s authorities.
IPN publishes in the Op-Ed rubric opinion pieces submitted by authors not affiliated with our editorial board. The opinions expressed in these articles do not necessarily coincide with the opinions of our editorial board.