In his first interview with Neatkarīgā after his release from prison, Aivars Lembergs reveals how much his absence from home made him realize the value of family and appreciate the support of the people; he talks cautiously about his future plans, and promises to continue serving Ventspils and the people of Ventspils.
What are your first impressions after returning to freedom?
Emotions! Lots of emotions! I came home and the first surprise was to be greeted by new family members. Persijs the cat. And our sheepdog Lords died and is now buried in a lovely place on a hill by thuja trees. But a new puppy has appeared, who, since he didn't know me, barked at me in a sonorous voice. The other dog, a female, who was small when I went to prison, has now grown big.
The next surprise was that when I came into the room, it was all covered in flowers, like a flower shop. Flowers in vases on the floor, on the windowsills, on the table - everywhere. More than I have ever received for my birthdays. Spring flowers - hyacinths, tulips, some freesias. Roses, too. The whole house smells of flowers! Amazing!
Ventspils people gave them to you?
They're all from Ventspils people. They had somehow found out that I was going to be let out, so they gave me a present. Very heart-warming.
The next surprise: I wake up in the morning - soft, nice country air, but my ears are ringing. From the silence. In the prison cell, I had the window open all the time. There's the railway, Riga - all the sounds of the city all the time, and from the corridor there were hollow door bangs. My ears had grown unaccustomed to being in complete silence. In the morning I woke up and realized that it was not Riga, but home, the forest, the first birds of spring chirping. Finally, I have a chance to take a morning walk in nature!
Most importantly - family. Before my return, my little boy Artūrs was asked what he wanted - maybe some things or a treat. Sitting on the porch, he replied that he wanted his daddy to come home. My wife did not say anything to him about me coming back. When he saw me, he was overwhelmed with joy! What a huge importance family and having someone waiting for you have! These feelings can be missed in everyday life. After a year away, it is possible to appreciate it. Family has a huge meaning, a huge value. Only now am I really beginning to understand what my family has had to go through during this year. I didn't have to go through anything special when I was in prison. You just have to adapt, because there are no other options. But for the family, the distress is much, much greater.
I remember another pleasant moment. After my release from prison, I went into a shop on the way home to buy some things that I had not had for a year in prison. There were many shelves in the shop, many goods. I had a hat on my head and a mask on my face. I asked the shop assistant where such and such spices were. She looks at me and says: "Mr Lembergs, it is a pleasure to see you free, come and I will show you", and she led me like a child by the hand to the right shelves. How good it felt. These are the moments you realize that all those scoundrels' efforts to get even with me, the leader of the opposition party, are not worth a penny!
What are your plans for the future in politics?
I continue to lead the political party For Latvia and Ventspils (Latvijai un Ventspilij). To the dismay of my enemies and the delight of my supporters, we won the municipal elections last year. The party whose leader was in prison and was subject to worldwide sanctions won. I was and am sanctioned, but Vladimir Putin was not. This means that I am more dangerous than Putin in the eyes of some. And despite that, we won the elections!
I am still a member of the Ventspils City Council. I continue to chair the Social Affairs Committee. Most of my time in detention was spent reading council materials, expressing my opinion and vision in writing on one issue or another. Of course, to take a major decision of a more complex nature, a face-to-face discussion is necessary. As a detainee, I was denied this discussion because I was not given access to a computer and the Internet, unlike, for example, in Norway, where there is a murderer of 77 people in custody who has access to the Internet. I have not murdered anyone, but I was not allowed to communicate with the council by computer so that I could participate as a popularly elected deputy in meetings of the council's commissions and committees. There is a huge gulf and chasm between democracy in Norway and democracy in Latvia.
It is important for deputies to exchange views. For example, we have a new project in Ventspils at the moment - the Family Center. There are many children's playgrounds in Ventspils, but if the weather is not pleasant - if it's rainy, windy - then you will not be able to walk outside with your child for long. The Family Center would be a place to go with your child in bad weather. The Council had an exchange of views on the location of the project. Speaking in person, I might have convinced my colleagues of the need to build in what I think is a more appropriate location, but the decision was taken as it was.
The next municipal elections are in three years' time. Saeima elections are close. What do you see as your role in this process?
I have a decennial birthday coming up. My heart and soul belong to the city to which I have dedicated 32 years of my life. I will never be indifferent to the city and its citizens. Even when I was in prison, I heard many very good things about Ventspils and my work.
The positive feedback and the kind words and letters of encouragement that I received in prison - nothing is more valuable than that.
Not even 100 medals. An order has no value at all compared to the value of positive human feedback, especially if you are in captivity, in solitary confinement, when your "walk" takes place in a 12-square-meter cage enclosed by a three-meter-high concrete wall. What matters to me is what happens to the city in the future. In 2019, sanctions were introduced against Latvia, and they are still in force. These are US sanctions. They were not imposed on the port or on me, but on Latvia specifically, because they are sanctions against a particular area of Latvia's activity. Historically, two sanctions have been introduced against Latvia in the 32 years of independence - the first by Russia in 1997, the next by the US in 2019. In these cases, Latvia was not supported by any country.
As regards the For Latvia and Ventspils party, I believe that there should be a change of leadership in the party. The time has come. I could be in the first group of veterans in the party; I could stay in the party and work without any posts, or I could work on the board - as the party will decide. The party has a cooperation agreement with the ZZS until October this year. With whom the party will decide to cooperate in the future remains to be seen. I have not heard that my colleagues would want to renegotiate this cooperation.
Do you see your career continuing in big politics?
At the moment I have to get treatment. Moreover, I do not want to allow prosecutors, as happened in the first instance, to delay the hearing of a criminal case with hundreds of unnecessary volumes, with all kinds of unnecessary material and witnesses in the criminal case. We are working carefully with the lawyers to ask for as few witnesses as possible to be cross-examined in the appeal. We would like to see the appeal trial end this year. These are my immediate goals.
Question - who will be the prime ministerial candidate of the ZZS and For Latvia and Ventspils alliance?
If the prime ministerial candidate has no "traction", then ZZS will win 9 to 11 seats in the Saeima - that is the stable electorate of ZZS. But if the candidate has "traction", then there will be 20 seats, 21 seats. The wavering voter can also be "picked up", but only with a strong prime ministerial candidate. In the last elections, as you have seen, the alliance won only 11 seats. The swing voters were not attracted, they were "picked up" by other parties.
Opinion polls show that you yourself have turbo-traction, do you see another prime ministerial candidate of similar power?
While I was in custody, my lawyer wrote an application for a change of security measure. At that moment, I heard in the media that 36% of those polled by SKDS wanted Lembergs as Prime Minister, while only 5% wanted Bordāns. I say to the lawyer: "Listen, don't waste paper, with proportions like that, where I have seven times more support than Bordāns, you can write whatever plea you want - I won't see the air of freedom like the back of my head." And so it was. A few months later, the lawyer again wrote a request for a change of security measure, again coinciding with the release of the latest polls. The ratings of public officials were assessed, and again I saw myself in the first place. I said to the lawyer: "Don't waste paper, it's a hopeless case."
Is there not another aspect to consider: if you were to be nominated as a candidate for Prime Minister, you would be taken back to prison the next morning?
Yes, we are already seeing the prime examples of this democracy. Of course they would. There is another thing - I have been in prison for a year and I have not spoken, apart from a bit on the phone. I have sat alone in a cell for a year. Now and then a rat or a pigeon would appear at the window. When I got home, I had to talk more, and after about 10 minutes I could feel my voice "falling". My vocal cords have completely atrophied. I can't talk for long in front of an audience.
A politician has to talk for a long time.
Exactly. So not only do I have to treat my back and other ailments, but I also have to train my vocal cords if I want to continue in politics.
How do you plan to bring the appeal to a conclusion within a year?
The court of first instance allowed the prosecutors to cross-examine 100 witnesses. Seven witnesses were cross-examined twice by the prosecutors. Only three of the witnesses we had entered were allowed to be examined.
100 against 3 - that is the ratio. It is called the adversarial principle. The Criminal Procedure Law provides for the principle of equal opportunities. The law says that it must be respected. How it is respected in practice, you can judge for yourself: 100 to 3. Is it a level playing field?
We have, of course, asked the court of appeal to allow us to cross-examine witnesses who have not been cross-examined before, but there are many foreigners among them, and they must be called to testify by a request for legal aid. They can also participate in the proceedings by videoconference. But all this has to be recorded, and it is very time-consuming. If many foreigners are questioned, it can take five years. That won't do at all. The question is: what to do? When I was arrested, I did not have the criminal case files with me. I did not have access to them for a year. I was forced to prepare my defense without access to the criminal case files that had been prepared in advance. These amount to some 800 volumes in total, containing the volumes of the criminal case, the prosecutors' debate speeches, the transcribed witness statements, the analyses, etc. I had to prepare the appeal and the addenda without access to the criminal case files. This is the highest democratic achievement of our country. To have to defend oneself without the right to access the criminal case files. Much has changed since the first instance judgment. The need to question this or that witness has disappeared. The number of witnesses will determine how quickly or slowly the trial proceeds.
What conclusions have you reached about your prosecution over the last year, in reading the judgement and preparing your appeal?
I know that I did not extort any bribes worth five lats from Kokalis and SIA Puses in 1993. That much is clear. I have not extorted anything from Ainārs Gulbis either. That would be absurd - does it really seem logical to anyone that I first set up this business and then extort something from it? So I extorted something from myself? The shares belonged to companies in which I was a member. So it turns out that the shares belong to the company that I own, and according to the accusation, I extorted the shares out of the company that I own. In other words, Lembergs has extorted the shares out of Lembergs. When I read this accusation, I realized that it is complete nonsense. But I waited for the judgement and, to my great surprise, I see that the judgment is a copy of the same accusation. Idiotic stupidity, completely without logic! So, on the basis of this nonsense, I was not only convicted but put in prison with little hope of getting out. I therefore believe that the charge against me is completely illegal. Moreover, in the same episode of SIA Puses, the court judgment mentions 26 times that the bribes were extorted at an unspecified time, in an unspecified place and under unspecified circumstances. But the judgment should not say what has not been established, but what has been established! First you have to find out and then you can judge! I started to look into the judgment, which is a copy of the accusation, and found that there were inescapable contradictions. The judgment destroys itself. For example, the idea that I have extorted shares from a company I own.
In the light of past experience, this does not prevent the court of appeal from simply deciding, for example, that it simply agrees with the judgment of first instance, and that's it.
I am not saying that it will, but I also understand that it may. For the time being, it looks as if the court is trying to look into everything. It is also very important whether Bordāns will continue to be Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Justice. Perhaps he will become President of the Supreme Court, President of the Judicial Council? If so, then...