[ad_1]
In discussing the results of the controversial, critically acclaimed investigation, the opposition spoke of the constitution and democracy being questioned, as well as the reputational damage they said to the “peasant” investigation of strategically important businesses and deals.
E. Gentvilas: I do not regret the time I spent in commission
Eugenijus Gentvilas, the only liberal opposition member who participated in the activities of the A. Širinskienė Commission, said he did not regret having to attend the organized meetings.
“Although I wasted some time, maybe I missed just a couple of sessions, I still don’t regret wasting my time, because I saw how the commission works behind the scenes,” the MP told Seimas members.
Speaking at the Seimas, the politician recalled how, according to him, the work of this commission had developed. According to the Liberal, all the steps of the commission led by A. Širinskienė only show that the objective was to take revenge on those who did not believe. And the fact that the commission was not taken seriously is also demonstrated by the order of organizing the meetings.
Ladies and gentlemen, this commission went from being a serious issues commission to a revenge commission to investigate the behavior of unbelieving colleagues who left the ruling “peasant” faction. I mean the commission did not have much to do. The penultimate The commission meeting took place in 2019. The next meeting took place on October 16 of this year. Ladies and gentlemen, the six and a half month commission did not hold a single meeting, “said E. Gentvilas.
Urbšys denies the charges against him.
Povilas Urbšys, who belongs to the Joint Group of Seimas Members on the radar of the Commission’s investigation, denied the allegations made against him in the conclusion that he, together with the President of Seimas Viktoras Pranckietis, had influenced the illegal dismissal of the former Prevention Division of COEC Mindaugas Siauris.
The politician criticized E. Gentvilas and presented arguments on why, in his opinion, one or the other person who opposed the “peasants” caught the attention of A. Širinskienė, the head of the commission, at that time some of them withdrew. other expected problems.
“If you recall why the commission was formed, it was formed on the assumption that the question of Rosatom’s influence on the Conservatives was not wide open. Is it not strange to you, dear ‘peasants’, why Širinskienė with his stubbornness did not he was able to hold onto the certificates. At that time, NSGK was headed by Vytautas Bakas, he did not open the safe, but when Gaižauskas became the committee chairman … What hindered the opening of this safe? I have no doubt that due to the fact that the connections that have been revealed now affect the rulers, ”said P. Urbšys.
When asked about damage to his reputation, he explained the situation regarding Landsberg’s family business
At that time, conservative Monika Navickienė spoke about the grim atmosphere formed by this investigation, according to her.
“There is not much enthusiasm to speak of the rulers in this work. We live in interesting but very uninspiring times.” I wish that at least my children do not have to experience such outbursts against democracy, where the truth is falsified, “said the politician According to her, A. Širinskienė’s commission recorded connections between the episodes, which no one else would dare to link.
“This commission took action against everyone: from Klaipedos Nafta, who built a terminal with energy guarantee, to the family of the opposition leader, to COEC officials, who did not bow their heads when investigating the conflicts of interest of the comrade of the old peasant. ” The President of the Seimas was humiliated in this commission, ”continued M. Navickienė.
Finally, the politician spoke on the issue of damaged reputation.
“Who will compensate the damage to a transparent business suffering reparative losses, who will compensate the disgruntled officials who may have acted in principle and did not bow their heads against political interests.” I hope there is little time left in this way to dirty the shoes on the pages of the Constitution, “said the conservative.
Mrs Navickienė explained why the discussions about the plot for 1 euro are worthless
Mrs. Navickienė emphasized that questions about the business owned by opposition leader Gabrielius Landsbergis and his wife were completely unwarranted. According to A. Širinskienė, there is a coincidence in time between some members of the Seimas, most of whom are conservatives, to petition the Constitutional Court and the Bat Cap Infrastructure Fund investments in the family business owned by Gabriel Landsbergis. At the same time, the politician questions whether the fact that the Krajama company (now an investment in knowledge of the UAB) with land for the construction of the Vaikystst soft drinks for the Queen Martha school and kindergarten in the district Kalnėnai bought for one euro is transparent.
According to the conservative, A. Širinskienė, who raises the question of the acquired plot, simply distorts the facts.
Bat Cap Infrastructure Fund did not acquire the parcel, but the company, which owns 1.3 million. liabilities value parcel. It is true that such amount was paid by this company, but it is also true that financial liabilities amounting to LTL 1.3 million were acquired together with it. euros The representatives of the school also explained that it is a 20-year agreement worth 20 million. “said the politician, emphasizing that this should be of interest to those who are concerned with the facts.
Three episodes in the investigation of A. Širinskienė
The conclusions presented indicate that after carrying out the investigation, the commission cannot deny the testimonies of Mindaugas Siaurys, former head of the Prevention Division of COEC, that the President of the Seimas Viktoras Pranckietis and the then President of the Seimas Committee on Public Administration and Municipalities Povilas Urbšys had influenced his dismissal. As indicated in the conclusion, the COEC processes lacked transparency and could have been influenced by the main foreign state politicians.
An investigation into the second episode of the work of the Attorney General’s Office revealed that his work may have been influenced by politicians. It is also argued that in some cases the Office of the Attorney General lacked transparency. As explained by A. Širinskienė, who prepared the conclusions, the testimonies received suggest that politicians may have influenced the investigations carried out by the Prosecutor General’s Office on public procurement, at the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant and AB Klaipėdos Nafta.
“The risk that in the future there may be an attempt to illegally influence decisions made by the Attorney General’s Office and, therefore, try to influence the independence of prosecutors,” the commission concluded.
In the third episode, on the impact of the pension funds, the commission was unable to draw conclusions. Failing to gather enough material, A. Širinskienė claimed, he did not have to confirm the conclusions but the circumstances.
“The Commission can only establish individual circumstances in this part, but cannot draw a general conclusion because it did not have access to all the documents required for the parliamentary investigation and to interview all the called witnesses,” the conclusion says.
According to A. Širinskienė, there is a coincidence in time between some members of the Seimas, most of whom are conservatives, to petition the Constitutional Court and the Bat Cap Infrastructure Fund investments in the family business owned by Gabriel Landsbergis. The politician, as he has repeatedly stated, suspects that there may be an opaque connection between the two events. The commission of inquiry was also trapped by the fact that the Krajama company (now an investment in UAB knowledge) with land for the construction of Queen Martha’s school and the “Vaikyst refress soft drinks” in the Kalnėnai district was bought for a euro.
“The member of Seimas G. Landsbergis and his wife A. Landsbergien las and the companies related to his family and the construction of the facility refused to explain and / or present to the commission documents that justify the acquisition of UAB Krajama with the land, its value and the circumstances of its acquisition. therefore, the commission was unable to complete the parliamentary investigation in this regard and in its conclusions answers the question of whether said transaction is transparent and shows no signs of political corruption, “the conclusion states.
Regarding the last moment, A. Širinskienė has stated, an evaluation will be requested from the State Tax Inspectorate.
Last week, after its presentation, the Seimas approved the conclusions: 55 Seimas members voted in favor, 39 against and 10 abstentions.
No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of ELTA.
[ad_2]
