[ad_1]
Previously, the Seimas convened a commission, which decided whether to comply with the request of the Attorney General’s Office to waive the legal immunity of the Seimas member P. Gražulis. The Commission organized two meetings in which it heard the representatives of the Attorney General’s Office and Fr. Gražulis himself.
The commission headed by Seimas member A. Lydeka decided to agree that P. Gražulis would be prosecuted, arrested or his freedom restricted.
“The commission, after examining the circumstances indicated in the request of the Prosecutor General Evaldas Pašilis and evaluating the explanations of the Prosecutor’s Office and Petras Gražulis, concluded that there were grounds to satisfy the request of the Prosecutor General of.
97 members of the Seimas voted in favor, 6 against and 26 abstentions.
Pleasant: this case is political
At that time, Fr. Gražulis himself from the Seimas rostrum was outraged that he had been persecuted all his life.
“After regaining independence, the current system had brought me five lawsuits and never said it was my political persecution. <...> This case is political, “said P. Gražulis.
No listeria was found in the Judex production and the prosecutor filed a lawsuit! The Seimas member was outraged.
He claimed that the case had been ordered by President Dalia Grybauskaitė.
“It is clear to all people, but not to you,” P. Gražulis addressed the Seimas.
P. Gražulis also alleged to the Seimas a little earlier that the Attorney General Evaldas Pašilis had lied, mentioning what a member of the Seimas was suspected of.
“And for the car rental I did not pay. I have all the documents, all the orders. And because he had a profit of 1800 euros. I have all the documents. My contract stipulated that I had the right to refuel. For 350 euros a month, I paid approximately and the prosecution calculates it completely differently, “said P. Gražulis.
He said he believed a political decision had already been made and that “no one needed justice.”
And nobody will want to delve into the bottom of the matter. It will say, let the court decide. Yes, I will still have the opportunity to say not to you, deputies of the Seimas, but to the people what I think and why the immunity is lifted. I hope that the commission will partially analyze the issues that accuse me. Today I was even more convinced that it was a political decision, since I criticized the captured media, the conservatives, Grybauskaitė ”, assured a member of the Seimas.
Try a second time
The Attorney General’s Office has already requested the Seimas from the previous mandate to suspend P. Gražulis’ legal immunity to complete the pre-trial investigation into the allegedly illegal actions of the politician.
Last June, the Seimas rejected E. Pašilis’s request to waive the immunity of P. Gražulis. This time, the Seimas member denied the accusations made against him and claimed that the case was just a political deal.
Police suspect that P. Gražulis helped manage the problems of the frozen food company Judex when Russian officials found the Listeria bacteria in the company’s products in 2015.
Prosecutors said that while helping the company, a Seimas member repeatedly called Lithuanian and Russian officials, asked for bribes, asked to violate existing procedures, and received property benefits from Judex.
P. Gražulis refused to testify as a special witness in the pre-trial investigation that began in 2016.
According to the prosecutor’s office, the pre-trial investigation into the abuse was completed last fall after using all available investigative possibilities. However, according to the prosecutor’s office, the fact that the parliamentarian was sworn in after the elections this year allows a re-application for the waiver of immunity for P. Gražulis.
How is legal immunity waived?
If the Seimas approves the convocation of said commission, it must invite a member of the Seimas whose immunity is being resolved and a representative of the Prosecutor’s Office to hear it.
When the commission of inquiry prepares and announces its conclusion, the question of the deprivation of immunity of a member of the Seimas will be placed on the agenda of the next session of the Seimas.
When considering the question of the deprivation of the immunity of a member of the Seimas, it will be limited only to the interpretation, assessment or clarification of the facts indicated in the brief of the Attorney General. The rapporteur of the commission of inquiry, the member of the Seimas whose personal immunity is decided, or another member of the Seimas authorized by him and no more than 2 members of the Seimas who speak “in favor” and “against” will participate in the discussions on waiver of immunity.
If the conclusion of the commission of inquiry proposes to satisfy the submission of the Attorney General, the protocol resolution of the Seimas to agree to prosecute, arrest or otherwise restrict the freedom of a member of the Seimas may be adopted when more than half of all members the Seimas vote for him.
If the conclusion of the commission of inquiry proposes not to satisfy the submission of the Attorney General, the protocol resolution of the Seimas not to prosecute a member of the Seimas, arrest or otherwise restrict his freedom may be adopted when more than half of the members of the Seimas present vote for him.
If the Seimas does not approve the proposal presented at the conclusion of the investigation commission so as not to satisfy the Attorney General’s presentation, a vote will be taken immediately to decide whether to agree to prosecute, arrest or otherwise restrict his freedom.
[ad_2]
