LEGAL EXPERTS VIEWING INITIATION OF USURPATION CASE DIFFERENTLY

Moldovan legal experts are offering differing opinions on the initiating by the Prosecutor General's Office of a criminal litigation on charges of usurpation of power in Moldova in June 2019.

In an interview with Infotag, lawyer Iurie Margineanu reminded that according to the Constitution, not a single private individual, or a part of the people, or a social group, or a political party or civil society association may not administer the state power in the country on their own behalf. Usurpation of power is a gross-most crime against the nation punishable with imprisonments between 10 and 20 years.

Prominent Moldovan jurist Dr. Pavel Midrigan, Dean of the Department of International Relations at University of European Political and Economic Sciences, believes that there was a political hidden reason in the June 7-14 events.

“The previous rulers’ goal was clear: to remain in power at no matter what price. For that, they used the Constitutional Court as an instrument that was milling indistinct, incomprehensible decisions and interpretations of laws. For example, the Constitutional Court spoke out for a snap parliamentary election despite the existence of a legitimate parliament and of workable majority in it. Why did the regime use the Constitutional Court? Because its decisions are final and without appeal. Things had gone really far: regime leaders got used to communicating with CC Judges via e-mail and mobile phones. Have you ever seen something alike?” wondered the expert.

Dr. Midrigan says that the actions by the Constitutional Court judges contained at least a complicity in the retention of power.

“The Judges worked even on weekends and holidays, coming to their workplaces on the authorities’ first call or even a hint. Now the investigators have to scrutinize calmly and accurately the correspondence and telephone talks of that period in the Constitutional Court and of those who were sending in orders to the Judges. Those developments must receive their objective legal assessment. The criminal litigation as such does not yet mean that somebody will necessarily be jailed. But at any rate such doings may not be left unpunished”, believes the expert.

Lawyer Eduard Rudenco says that the question is about bringing offenders to stand responsibility against Article 339 of the Moldova Criminal Code “Usurpation of State Power” namely its Part 1 “Actions committed to usurp or forcibly retain the state power with violation of the Constitution”.

“There are problems with corpus delicti. All those 7 days, there were Constitutional Court decisions in force. If to proceed from them, the Democratic Party did not usurp the state power – it simply obeyed to the Court. So, jurists have food for discussion here. In my opinion, the Democratic Party usurped power in Moldova much earlier, not in June 2019, and not for a week”, said the expert.

Lawyer and human-right activist Anna Ursachi is convinced that this crime is far from the only one committed by Vlad Plahotniuc and his accomplices over the last decade.

“However, the criminal litigation, being discussed so ardently these days, concerns not only the events of June 7-10, when the criminal community of Messieurs Plahotniuc, Filip and Candu was joined by the Constitutional Court in its full composition. Moreover, minimum three of the Judges did not simply worked off the order that came from Plahotniuc, but also proved one more time their long-lasting belonging to the organized criminal group. That very group was retaining the state power in Moldova since the moment of the memorable nighttime appointment of Pavel Filip as prime minister of Moldova. Those three CC Judges were Raisa Apolschi, Artur Resetnicov and Mihai Poalelungi. Therefore, the criminal litigation, initiated against these people and the oligarch’s other lackeys, must necessarily cover other periods and episodes as well”, stressed Anna Ursachi.

In her words, the Moldovan society is looking forward to learning which measure of restraint may be chosen for the personalities concerned.

“Certainly, this may be only arrest. In this sense, the civil society is expecting resolute actions from the new Prosecutor General. For usurpation of power, there may be no other measure of restraint except detention. This is necessary also for preventing the practice of fleeing from the country, demonstrated to us by Plahotniuc, Shor and some other”, said Anna Ursachi.