The initiation of the procedure for dismissing Eduard Harunjen from the post of prosecutor general (PG) aroused contradictory discussions among political commentators and legal experts. Some consider the parliamentary majority’s step is a tactical move aimed at gaining political advantages. Others believe this is opportune and necessary, IPN reports.
Ion Dron, who heads the Center for Initiatives and Public Authorities Monitoring, said that if it had been a prosecutor who coped with the events of the past, the debates on the necessity of dismissing Eduard Harunjen would have lasted for three days. The prosecutor general should have left as he didn’t do what he was to for the prosecution service not to reach such a state. “I don’t think this decision is according to the letter of the law, but it is in the spirit of the law,” stated Ion Dron.
According to him, the decision adopted by Parliament seems to be a find. “If such a conclusion was reached, it should have been remitted to the Superior Council of Prosecutors for this to take notice of it and take a decision as regards Eduard Harunjen. Laster, this decision should have been transmitted to the authorities,” he said, noting this issue is not within the remit of the President or the legislature.
Political commentator Vlad Țurcanu said Parliament resorted to such a procedure under the pressure of the recent events. Euduard Harunjen should have resigned, as the judges of the Constitutional Court did. “As Eduard Harunjen did nothing to elucidate the bank fraud and because he appeared to be a docile instrument in the hands of the Democratic Party for harassing political opponents, businesspeople and loyal majors, Mister Harunjen should have left. But the Democratic Party that is now in opposition probably has a stake that is being protected by Mister Harunjen,” stated the commentator.
For his part, political commentator Roman Mihăes said Parliament could have assessed the work done by the Prosecutor General’s Office based on a Parliament decision, but this wasn’t done. The Parliament decision seems to be based on reasons invented with the aim of removing the prosecutor general and it is not known if such a move is declared constitutional. “What happened today in Parliament was defiance of the Constitution,” he noted.
On July 9, Parliament passed a motion finding that Eduard Harunjen had not been eligible to become Prosecutor General and recommending the President to “terminate his employment”.
