Parliament politically pressures prosecutors

RIGA - Parliament and its investigation committee should have no
authority in criminal procedures, according to the vice-chair of
Latvia's sworn advocate council.

Vija Jakobsone said a recent move by the members of Parliament to
empower their own special prosecuton, in light of the resignation of
General Prosecutor Janis Skrastins, was wrong.

"The question is what function does the parliamentary investigation
commission have? Does it have the same function as the prosecutor
office's or not? This is the principal question,"said Jakobsone.
"They like to investigate the facts about the crimes, but it is not
Parliament's investigation function."

That, said Jakobsone, is reserved for the police, the prosecutor
general's office and the courts.

Parliament's distaste for Skrastins has taken it into legal territory
that oversteps its boundaries, according to Jakobsone and Valts
Kalnins, a political science lecturer at Latvijas Universitate.

Kalnins said the deputies had a legitimate interest in the activities
of the prosecutor general's office and they questioned it in legal
ways: They compiled 52 signatures to ask the chairman of the Supreme
Court to appoint a judge to investigate the prosecutor general.

Yet they wanted a bill, which passed first reading and is now the
subject of disagreement, that would establish the position of a
special prosecutor who takes orders from the investigations
commission.

"This means that Parliament would like to have a prosecutor
controlled by Members of Parliament,"said Kalnins.

The move can be compared to the position of the now-defunct special
prosecutor in the United States, a position last held by Kenneth
Starr.

Starr, who investigated U.S. President Bill Clinton, was often
accused of being a Republican party operative by Democrats who
supported the president.

Kalnins said the parliamentary investigation commission in Latvia
tends to be very political and the subject of political fights and
shifting interests.

He said according to the new bill, once the special prosecutor
started a case, a commission of deputies would decide what to do with
the case and how to present it to the police.

Currently, procedural decisions in criminal investigations are made
independently of political considerations.

There are divisions of power in Latvia: legislative, Parliament,
executive, Cabinet of Ministers, and judicial, the courts and the
prosecutor general's office.

Kalnins said while legislative and executive powers tend to be fused,
there is generally a clear division between legislative and judicial
powers: Only in certain circumstances is the legislative branch
allowed to override the judicial branch.

"I don't think it would be appropriate if these deputies have the
authority to decide how these criminal cases should be
investigated,"he said.

When taken in combination with the investigation commission's harsh
criticism of Skrastins and a lack of information to discredit him,
Kalnins said the political motivation is clear.

"This shows, at least part of the Members of Parliament would take
control of the general prosecutor's activities than is legitimately
allowed in the constitution and is logical in Latvia,"he said.

Inese Voika, the president of the Latvian chapter of Transparency
International, an organization which lobbies for open government,
said when politicians investigate other politicians there is a huge
need for a strong and independent prosecutor.

Yet Voika said any law - changes to the prosecution law have been
threatened by Parliament as well as a law creating a special
prosecutor - cannot protect the prosecutor general's office from
political pressure.

"It's obvious the pressure and the possibility of pressure at the
prosecutor general's office doesn't depend on the law but on the
willingness to accept the pressure."