How Geshev mocked MPs – Analysis

© Julia Lazarova

The analysis was republished by Deutsche Welle.

Bulgaria is rocked by a political crisis because there are serious suspicions of corruption and abuse against those in power, including Prime Minister Borissov. These doubts have even been included in reports and resolutions of European authorities. We are talking about specific scandals: “Bozhkov”, “nightstand”, “records”, “house in Barcelona”, “eight dwarfs”, “Libyan oil tanker”, etc.

In none of these scandals, neither the parliament nor the public received meaningful information from Ivan Geshev. This only reinforced the impression that he held his high office for a specific purpose: precisely in such scandals that nothing happens in criminal terms.

However, the main culprit for the mockery of parliament is not Ivan Geshev, but the ruling majority of GERB, MRF and their satellites, who allowed it. In this case, the BSP did its job as an opposition: its deputies were very well prepared and asked the necessary questions.

But the ruling majority did not oppose Geshev’s attempts to avoid these problems, on the contrary, it helped him with comfortable questions and finally drafted a positive resolution approving the report and listening to it. This act confirmed the political non-aggression agreement between the attorney general and the government: each protects the other’s backs.

What is the Attorney General really responsible for?

Ivan Geshev’s hearing by the Legal Committee in the National Assembly demonstrated that the problem with the Attorney General’s irresponsibility has deepened. Following the Constitutional Court ruling on the operational independence of prosecutors and the fact that any prosecutor can investigate Ivan Geshev, the following paradoxical interpretation has emerged: the lead prosecutor can influence any case through “methodological guidance”, but It is not responsible for any one of the cases, but only for its methodological instructions.

If this “methodological guide” is the main substantive work of the Attorney General, then why is it not present in his report? What were the instructions, guidelines and methodological guidelines that you gave? Are they formal or not? How many? Are they literate? Are they public? Have they affected any of the big scandals? The public did not receive any information about any of this.

The big problem is that this deliberately vague concept of “methodological orientation” consolidates the power of the attorney general over his wards (they must comply with it) and removes responsibility for each case. This is especially the case in the situation of the toothless SJC, who does not exercise any control over the activities of the Attorney General in general.

What are the cases of public interest on which the prosecution provides information?

What is Ivan Geshev’s “methodological guide” on this issue was also not clear to the audience. As noted by BSP MP Krum Zarkov, in some cases the prosecutor’s office provides a lot of information because it was in the public interest, and in others, those for which thousands are protesting, it is extremely frugal. In the scandals surrounding the prime minister, for example, Ivan Geshev only said that Borisov had been questioned three times by various prosecutors.

In some of his responses, Geshev hinted at how prosecutors decide what information to release – only if it supports the prosecution’s thesis. Because the defendants had access to the media, the prosecutors decided to hand over information that justified their own positions. But if this is the methodological instruction, the lawyers are right to protest that it is an abuse of power: the prosecution itself places itself in a privileged position to release what benefits it, in cases that benefit it.

In other words, there is a clear double standard that undermines the rule of law.

Why did Ivan Geshev not ask supervisory prosecutors for permission to disclose information on cases of public interest?

The prosecution’s report is full of dry statistics about its bureaucratic turnover. Even the rulers were lost in this statistic. GERB deputy Krassimir Tsipov, for example, asked how many of the reported corruption cases affected the higher echelons of power. If you understand the response you receive, you should share it.

Usually as “high floor of power” and under investigation, the incumbent minister is Neno Dimov. The problem is that the cases against him are for violation of the Water Management Law and have little to do with corruption: at least that information has not been leaked to the media. And Neno Dimov was used simply as a punitive fuse to cover up a serious management error, for which the political blame is collective: the government.

In this context of a lack of cases in the upper echelons of power, it is extremely unlikely that Ivan Geshev did not think to prepare well for the heated scandals surrounding the ruling party and the prime minister. In fact, the goal of hearing him in parliament was exactly that: to show that he takes suspicions of corruption seriously as the very center of power. The one Neno Dimov, unlike Ahmed Dogan and other MRF notables, has never been to.

What is parliament for?

The meaning of parliamentary scrutiny is that parliamentarians can receive comprehensive information on the functioning of state bodies. On the basis of this information, they must make major legislative and personnel decisions, including changing the constitution itself.

Ivan Geshev’s hearing in the National Assembly commission became a joint exercise between the ruling party and the Attorney General to hide information from the public. If this cover-up is crowned by a decision of the National Assembly in the plenary hall, accepting and approving the report of the prosecution, the mockery of parliamentarism will become final.

And here we come to the request for the resignation of the Speaker of Parliament, Ms. Tsveta Karayancheva. This request is justified, although it is extremely ironic that the MRF, which is de facto part of the ruling majority and shares with it the blame for the erosion of parliamentarism, supports it. Under the leadership of Ms Karayancheva, the Bulgarian parliament has become completely insignificant and has become a cover for the executive and the prosecution: their mission seems to be to hide the prime minister and the chief prosecutor.

The British Parliament can make “contempt of parliament” decisions if senior officials refuse to provide requested information or if they obstruct the activities of elected officials. In 2018, for example, the parliamentary majority declared that the entire government was “a lack of respect for parliament”, a precedent in the constitutional history of the island.

The Bulgarian parliament, through the majority in it, renounced its power to request meaningful information and to exercise parliamentary control. And he insulted himself in a very serious way.

If Ms. Karayancheva does not understand this, it is clear that she is not suitable for the position.