[ad_1]
Thorbjørn Jagland suggests that former Justice Minister Grete Faremo, or someone in the circle around her, used proofreading varnish on an important document to conceal knowledge of a spicy surveillance case.
Grete Faremo was Minister of Justice and Minister of Commerce and Industry in the government of Thorbjørn Jagland. But he had to resign due to the surveillance case against Berge Furre. Photo: Rune Petter Ness
«I was in a rush. »
In the book “You Will Own It Yourself”, former Labor leader and Prime Minister Torbjørn Jagland talks about the difficult Furre case that led him to think he had to fire his own minister, Grete Faremo.
Faremo himself thought she was fired for the wrong reasons and went public against her former boss.
«Grete Faremo became something of a martyr in wide circles», Jagland writes in the book.
She used the word “political theft” on the events that led her to resign. But Jagland suggests more in the book that she knew more than she admitted at the time.
The Furre case: a scandal
The “Furre case” was one of the most dramatic cases in the autumn of Thorbjørn Jagland became prime minister in 1996. Berge Furre was a former SV politician who a couple of years earlier had been appointed to a very important commission: the Lund Commission. It was to investigate the secret services in Norway.
Furre himself was for many years suspected by the surveillance police of having been an agent of the Stasi, the East German electronic service. But no one found any evidence of it when these files became openly available after the fall of the wall. Despite this, what was then called the Police Surveillance Service (POT) initiated an investigation into Furre, while he was in the Lund Commission.
When it was met, it was considered such a scandal that both the head of the surveillance service, Hans Olav Østgaard, had to leave. And since Grete Faremo had been Minister of Justice while this was happening, Jagland also told her that she had to resign. When she left, she was Minister of Commerce and Energy.
When and what did she know?
In the book, Jagland describes how important it became for him to find out what she knew about this vigilance when he sat down as chief minister. He could have stopped Furre’s investigations.
«My immediate and urgent task was to find out what time the Minister of Justice had been informed. The game on this immediately began at the Storting. For my part, another question also arose, of a serious nature: Why had the then Minister of Justice Grete Faremo not mentioned this matter to me when I asked her to be Minister of Oil and Energy? It is an unwritten rule, against which many have sinned, that one mentions everything that may be difficult in the future when committing to sit around the king’s table. But I didn’t hear anything about this», Jagland writes.
Grete Faremo, disappointed, left the government for Jagland in December 1996. She then headed the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, a ministry that since 1997 has been called the Ministry of Oil and Energy. Photo: Say, Richard
Dreaded prolonged political struggles
Jagland believed there would be a lengthy trial at the Storting about what she knew, if she did not take action against Faremo.
«They would demand hearings, summon the public administration, and demand the delivery of documents. If, on the contrary, I fired her, the criticisms were directed at me. Faremo would be the innocent victim“, He writes.
He reports that the meeting took place on the afternoon of December 13, 1996. The political leadership of the Ministry of Justice was summoned to his office. The ministry was then headed by attorney Anne Holt, who later became known as the “queen of crime.” A total of six attended the meeting in addition to Jagland.
The document was corrected with test varnish.
“The facts we had in the case were put on the table»Jagland writes and points out that the head of mission Berit Fosheim at the Ministry of Justice insisted that she had informed the minister about the case.
The head of monitoring should have emphasized that the information had to get to the Minister.
«This contradicted what Minister Faremo publicly stated. She had not been informed. The people of Justice Minister Anne Holt were at the ministry and were looking for all the documents that could shed light on the case. Late at night a document written by Berit Fosheim appeared on our table. It was a report of the meeting he had had with the head of watch, the content of which was that the head of watch had reported on the Berge Furre investigation. The minutes were sent for circulation in the ministry, among other things, to political leaders. It is common for those who receive this type of document to initial it after reading it. So also in this case. In the political leadership section, there was a white spot. Something was painted. Everyone around the table looked down speechless, but thought their own»Writes the former prime minister.
He adds that «no matter how we interpreted the white spot, Grete Faremo had to take responsibility.
« In any case, he testified to an unacceptable situation in the ministry that led to the surveillance service not being stopped. It was a terrible night. In a brutal way, it became clear to me what political leadership is. I had to
make the final decision; no official could do that for
me. All night I saw no advice other than that Grete Faremo had to
assume constitutional responsibility, although I kept the opportunity open to
that the information had not reached him“, He writes.
He thought he was risking the life of the government if he didn’t ask him to leave
He thought that the alternative would be a trial at the Storting where he would have had to tell what had happened.
«If in such process I did not give the Storting all the information, something that from the beginning
second, it would put the entire government at stake.»
Therefore, he requested a meeting with Faremo and informed him of what they had discovered and of his own decision.
«A few minutes before going to the Storting grandstand to give an account
in fact, he called me and asked me to tell him that I believed in his presentation. I added this to my statement, but emphasized that she had to take constitutional responsibility for what happened.“, He writes.
Jagland: another contradiction
The dispute between Jagland and Faremo did not end with this:
On April 30, 1997, Faremo himself appeared in the press. She said that she felt clean, as the Attorney General had upheld her that the surveillance service’s interest in Furre should be viewed as an investigation, something that she could not intervene in.
«I perceived this as another contradiction», Jagland writes.
He pointed out that this was contrary to what she had written to him in a letter in late January 1997. He then pointed out, according to Jagland, that the Ministry of Justice was not aware that an investigation was taking place at the time in question. .
“He was unable to say in January that he did not know that an investigation had been initiated, and in May he was able to say that he knew that such an investigation was taking place, but he was unable to intervene.” writes Jagland.
Jagland: – A contradiction
The case ended with a hearing at the Storting where Faremo repeated his version.
The hearings were enlightening and made Faremo’s statement when handing over the keys of the ministry to the new minister that she had been subjected to a “robbery” seem even more disloyal and serious. Calling a necessary constitutional cleansing “theft” was for me once again to show contempt for the principle of distribution of power in our constitution “writes Jagland.
Faremo rejects research knowledge
Faremo tells Aftenposten that he has not read Jagland’s book and therefore does not want to comment on it now.
But she denies that she, or the political leadership of the Ministry of Justice, knew or knew that Furre was being investigated.
“The case has been thoroughly discussed. The claim that the political leaders knew about the investigation is not correct as it was repeated 24 years later,” he wrote in an SMS to Aftenposten. And he adds:
At the time, the Attorney General thoroughly reviewed the case and concluded that there was no evidence for the allegations. He had some comments on the handling of the prosecution. «
He also writes that he has not read Jagland’s book.
“If I choose to do it later, I may comment on it. Not now.”
Faremo does not comment directly on Jagland’s suggestion that someone has used correction varnish.
Berit Reiss-Andersen says she has not read the book. Therefore, you do not want to comment now.
