On November 29, Prosecutor General Alexandr Stoianoglo made a year since his appointment, on which occasion he was invited to the Parliament’s plenary to report the situation in the most scandalous corruption cases: theft of the billion, laundromat, Bahamas, Metalferos … Stoianoglo refused, arguing that lawmakers had exceeded their powers and that he shall not be obliged to submit reports to the Parliament. On the other hand, the deputies reproach him that, in a year since he is the general prosecutor, no resonance file has been submitted to Court.
Why does Stoianoglo refuse to come to Parliament?
Doesn’t he have something to say?
Natalia Molosag, lawyer
I think he doesn’t have anything to say. Mr. Stoianoglo understands that if he comes to Parliament, he will be asked specific questions, on specific files, in which nothing has been done, but applied and canceled seizures. The promises were great: recovering the billion which has not been done, Plahotniuc in handcuffs, yet he is free, Shor in prison, however, he is still a deputy in the Parliament, Platon released, and many others. The Prosecutor General has changed, otherwise, everything is still the same. The system remained the same. It’s not just about high corruption cases, but also ordinary ones, where there is a lot of abuse and a lot of formalities. I addressed Mr. Stoianoglo in three cases and didn’t receive an answer. For the ordinary man, the Prosecutor’s Office remained the same.
Igor Munteanu, deputy
I see a contradiction in the unwillingness of Mr. Stoianoglo to submit a report to the supreme legislative authority because it would impair his functional autonomy. But why does he not feel harmed by participating in President Dodon’s festivities, in the meetings of a Supreme Security Council, with consultative attributions? Well, the 1990 UN Guide and the 2000 CoE recommendation on the role of the prosecution in the criminal justice system state that the Prosecutor’s Office is an independent, autonomous service, but independence and autonomy are not given to it in its interest, but in the interest of law enforcement. However, the legislators who investigated the circumstances of the bank fraud want exactly what the prosecutors have to deliver: an honest investigation, in the public interest, of some crimes. In these circumstances, Mr. Stoianoglo’s inability to curb his professional pride speaks to us of a visible professional inadequacy. After a year in office, the Prosecutor General should have delivered tangible and publicly recognized results, not free, inconsistent fireworks.
Iurie Țap, former deputy
From the perspective of the constitutional principle of separation of powers, Mr. Stoianoglo’s refusal is a motivated one: the Prosecutor’s Office is out of parliamentary control. The problem can, however, be approached differently, from the perspective of law enforcement control. Thus, the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office provides for the presentation of the annual report on the activity of the Prosecutor’s Office. Under the law, Parliament could hear this report early next year. Depending on the analysis presented, it could also come with the necessary assessments. We must recognize, however, that the situation of the Prosecutor General is a difficult one. On the one hand, it faces enormous external pressure, but even worse – latent sabotage inside the system. The Prosecutor General would need the support of the Parliament, the Presidency, the Government, which should constantly promote messages to encourage the fight against corruption, and also to take concrete steps in this regard.
Cornelia Cozonac, Center for Journalistic Investigations
Alexandr Stoianoglo, a man who came into office from the system, thought that he would face the situation. I think he wanted to move the heavy files, to make prosecutors work smoothly. He didn’t have anyone to work with on the big files. Most prosecutors are compromised, involved in corruption schemes, which is why politics pressured them easily to work at its order. There are also uncompromising prosecutors, however, those who are compromised make the schemes. I think Stoianoglo would have something to say in a year’s term. He is either afraid to do it, or he does not have enough courage to change things as he wants and as he has promised to do.