Bordāns' Ministry is pushing the next "anti-Lembergs law" through the Saeima

The proposal of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) headed by Jānis Bordāns to include in the Local Government Law norms mocking the presumption of innocence, which would prevent electing a deputy who has been given a security measure in criminal proceedings as a local government chairman, earned sharp criticism in the Saeima committee and was rejected.

All these Bordānites hope that the lack of support in the Saeima committee does not mean that the proposal will be rejected by the majority of the Saeima, public information shows.

It should be reminded that two months ago the Saeima rejected two other "anti-Lembergs laws" initiated by the representatives of the party led by J. Bordāns - they intended to prohibit former members of the Supreme Council who voted for Latvia's independence from visiting the Saeima if sanctions were imposed on them (read more).

Another "anti-Lembergs law"

At the sitting of the Saeima Public Administration and Local Government Committee on November 2 this year, the proposal of Saeima Member Viktoris Valainis (ZZS) to delete the weakly justified anti-democratic norms promoted by the Bordāns' Ministry was supported, with five deputies voting “for”. They intended to amend Section 16 of the Local Government Law to read as follows: "A deputy of the council who has been subjected to a procedural coercive measure (security measure) in accordance with the procedures specified in the Criminal Procedure Law - a prohibition of certain occupations which prevents the performance of the duties of the chairman or deputy chairman of the council - shall not be nominated as a candidate for the position of the chairman or deputy chairman."

At the meeting of the committee on October 20, discussing these and other proposals for amendments to the Local Government Law, Members and invited experts came to V. Valainis' proposal to delete the previously quoted wording of Section 16 of the law proposed by the Ministry of Justice. The committee had a heated debate about the efforts of the "Bordānites" to oust their political opponent, Aivars Lembergs, who is currently imprisoned in Riga Central Prison, with the help of amendments to the law.

Lembergs' name should be indicated in the law

Senior Adviser of the Latvian Association of Local and Regional Governments Dr. phys. and Dr. oec. Māris Pūķis explained to the Members among other things that there is a presumption of innocence, thus the implementation of the mentioned norm will disgrace Latvia. "In this way, we doubt that deputies can have a specific attitude towards a particular leader and towards restrictions. If there are restrictions related to the affairs of the council, it restricts the work of the council and they are not issues unknown to the deputies. Deputies can express their views on them, and they must be allowed to do so. The introduction of such rules is completely unnecessary. The fact that this norm was invented in relation to one person at the time [meaning A. Lembergs] also disgraces our legislation. Therefore, the proposal to exclude this norm should be supported,” said M. Pūķis.

Representative of the Latvian Association of Large Cities Dr. iur. Artis Stucka told the deputies: "This article definitely needs an editorial correction because the article should say "restrictions on Aivars Lembergs to hold a position in the City Council." Then it will be clear to everyone what this article is about. I cannot recall any case of another Member being elected to the Council who was subject to such restrictions. We, the Latvian Association of Large Cities, have asked for the opinion of the Council of Sworn Advocates so that such a decision was not explained by a single lawyer. The proposal to amend the law was considered by the Council of Sworn Advocates. We have received an answer. It first explains what a security measure is. It is specifically regulated in the Criminal Procedure Law - it says that it is time-limited. This means that it can be valid for a week, two, a month or two months, but in no case is it permanent. Therefore, fellow lawyers point out that by including such a norm in the Local Government Law, it will, in essence, be a punishment established by law. Respectively, a person will have a restriction established by law, which by its nature is temporary in nature, but will be imposed permanently and thus it is disproportionate. Lawyers also point out that this is a unique case. If we talk about local government officials, then we also have to talk about other officials. In essence, this norm would also be applicable to the Saeima, the Cabinet of Ministers, officials of state enterprises. Question - why is this norm applied only to local governments? I would recommend colleagues from the Ministry of Justice to get acquainted with the judgment of the Constitutional Court in the Jurašs case, where it is explained how a Saeima Member may and may not be restricted, and recommend applying the same to local government deputies to understand that this norm is illegal and if it is adopted, it will be appealed to the Constitutional Court. Consequently, such a provision makes no sense. It is already clear that it is in conflict with the Constitution.”

Acknowledges that this is meant for Ventspils municipality

Iveta Brīnuma, the head of the Constitutional Law Department of the Ministry of Justice, representing the amendments, objected: “This is a proposal of the Ministry of Justice, and I will substantiate it. The proposal is related to the Criminal Procedure Law. It has a special institute for determining security measures in the event that a specific criminal proceeding is initiated and the person conducting the proceedings has decided that the person is a suspect or accused .. However, if the process facilitator has made the specific decision that the person in question may not hold this position, then this person should not be nominated as a candidate either. In the annotation, we also tried to substantiate both the legitimate aim and proportionality. You can read it all in writing .. The presumption of innocence is not at all affected here, because the final decision is made by a court or a prosecutor.”

Mārtiņš Lode, Adviser to the Minister of Justice J. Bordāns, informed the Members, among other things: "The Ministry of Justice has been told that it should take into account the judgment in the Jurašs case and that it is almost the same, that a constitutional complaint has been guaranteed and the outcome is already predictable. Looking at the court ruling that has been applied to the Member Juris Jurašs, I would like to say that referring to the same assessment that Mr. Stucka mentioned, the assessment of the Council of Sworn Advocates on this very aspect, the Council of Sworn Advocates points out that it cannot agree that the severity of the specific interference in the rights of local government deputies is equal to the respective judgment of the Constitutional Court and the right to perform the position of deputies remains. These cases are not comparable in this way. As to whether this could be a punishment - the security measure - I would like to ask whether, in all other cases when a security measure is applied, is it perceived as a punishment? This is unpleasant for a particular person, but it has never been seen as a punishment. About the fact that this is an amendment to the law addressed to Lembergs, and that we should be ashamed of envisaging such a norm - I would like to say that it is a kind of preventive measure, a norm of a preventive nature, which will really free us from shame in the future that a council could be poorly run by an official who has a suitable security measure that essentially prevents him from performing these duties, and in fact I want to say that knowing in advance that a person will not be able to perform his duties fully, in my opinion, if he should be appointed - that is already a deliberate action, and Mr. Pūķis does not deny that it basically presumed that the operation of the council will be hindered. I want to say that there is a duty to avoid it, and as the experience and history of the case with Ventspils municipality shows that it can happen, then it would definitely be a duty to prevent it so that it does not happen again in the future.”

Shows the political weakness of these "Bordānites"

Kristīne Kinča, Legal Adviser of the Latvian Association of Local and Regional Governments, pointed out: “The information provided by the representatives of the Ministry of Justice further confirms why this proposal should not be continued. Let me explain why. There is a presumption of innocence in criminal law and criminal procedure. A person is presumed innocent until proven otherwise in court. Although these coercive procedural measures have been imposed, they are intended not to hinder this criminal investigation and to prevent the person from influencing the outcome of the particular criminal proceedings. In this case, by saying that a person who has been granted a procedural coercive measure cannot be nominated as the chairman of the council, we violate the presumption of innocence with this norm. We convict the person before the court has done so."

MP Regīna Ločmele (Harmony, Saskaņa) stated: "I was very surprised to hear the opinion of the Ministry of Justice. I got the impression that the representatives of the Ministry of Justice have no idea at all about the democratic process, about what we are talking about here, that the council is an elected body, the same as the Saeima, only at a lower level. They are the elected representatives of the people in a particular territory, and to use expressions such as "biased nomination", then the whole nation may be biased not to believe in the court, because its judgments do not correspond to the people's idea of ​​justice, for example, with the Zolitūde case. .. In modeling the situation, you could put, for example, Mr. Jurašs at the municipal level. If the same thing happened to him, if he had a chance to become the chairman of the council and suddenly a criminal case appeared, then again everything would end at high speed with the Constitutional Court to prove that he can and is allowed to do anything.”

Summarizing the debate, MP V. Valainis concluded: “This is a political struggle with one [specific] deputy, which does no honor to the Ministry of Justice. On the contrary, it shows its political weakness and nothing else."

*****

Be the first to read interesting news from Latvia and the world by joining our Telegram and Signal channels.