Conflict in Parliament over the waiver of the immunity of Polakis and Adamopoulou POLICY

The debate in the Parliament for the lifting of immunity of Pavlos Polakis and the MP of MERA25, Angeliki Adamopoulou, developed into a fierce conflict.

SYRIZA, with the interventions of its top executives such as Dimitris Tzanakopoulos, George Katrougalos and Nikos Voutsis, speaks of a “parliamentary coup” and a “constitutional diversion” but also of “silencing MPs” and authoritarianism of the parliamentary majority.


Bougas (SW): There will be a treatment that applies to all citizens

For his part, New Democracy MP Giannis Bougas replied that there would be a treatment that applies to all citizens, explaining that in the recent revision of the Constitution the amendment was voted to exclude from the unpunished defamatory reports even if they are made within of the Plenary. “The discussion is not about the legally unfounded and whether the Parliament has the competence to take a position on the waiver of immunity. It is done to attack the opposition for the supposedly police-held state. An invention to personally attack the Minister of Civil Protection and the government. There is no police state. What exists is that the Left, which claims the privilege, violates the laws and is not controlled. Because whatever the ordinary citizen is controlled, the MP will also be controlled. “There will be a treatment that applies to all citizens,” said Mr. Bougas.

Katrougalos: We can not vote until the media leaders are satisfied

SYRIZA MPs claim that the lawsuit filed by Giannis Kourtakis against Pavlos Polakis is similar to an older one that has already been rejected by Parliament and ask that it be declared inadmissible. “ND adopts the personal revenge of the media leaders. Those who read the lawsuit see that the facts are completely similar to another lawsuit rejected by Parliament. We are talking about a mockery of the Institutions. “We cannot continue to vote until what the media leaders want goes through,” said George Katrougalos.

“The previous complaint is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing today. It concerns events completely different from what we are discussing today and of course in another time. Therefore, the facts as defined by the Constitution and the law are not the same and there is no case of application of the relevant provision “, replied Mr. Bougas

Controversy also in the case of Adamopoulou

At the same time, the debate on the lifting of the immunity of the MP of MERA25, Angeliki Adamopoulou, who had claimed from the floor of Parliament that “hooded” “Molotov cocktails” exist in the ranks of the Greek Police, has caused a storm of reactions. a defamation lawsuit was filed by an ELAS trade union.

SYRIZA MP, George Katrougalos argued that the case should be rejected as it concerns the exercise of parliamentary duties of Ms. Adamopoulou.

From ND, Mr. Giannis Bougas explained that “the Parliament can only do an opinion on whether or not to grant permission to prosecute” while adding that after the revision of the Constitution there is no prosecution for the crime of defamation.

Vassilis Kegeroglou of KINAL separated the cases of Messrs. Polakis and Adamopoulou, saying especially for the latter that he cannot be prosecuted for an opinion he expressed in parliament, with K. Velopoulos of El. Solution to bid in this direction. “Based on the letter of the Constitution, there can be no incident! The institution of immunity is not an originality of the Greek Constitution and the institution of parliamentary immunity is narrowly interpreted “, the parliamentary representative of ND, G. Bougas, initially answered and added:” the letter of the law and the regulation states that the requests for justice are transmitted in Parliament after being checked by a prosecutor of the Supreme Court. It means that before the prosecutor forwarded he has carried out an audit regarding the admissibility and legal validity. “Once the files are forwarded to Parliament, the latter has the right to assume that this basic audit has been investigated.”

From the KKE, Mr. Giannis Giokas said that “the accumulation of cases results from ND’s attempt to legitimize and launch the practice of lifting immunity for acts or opinions of MPs related to parliamentary and political activity, something that is prohibited by its revised form. Article 62 that we did not vote on The case of Mrs Adamopoulou is the most glaring. He made a statement from the floor of the Plenary and is accused. You start with some cases that have logic to legitimize a practice that has queues and extensions related to the censorship of an MP “.

Former Parliament Speaker Nikos Voutsis claimed: “There are also statements by party leaders on the basis of Ms. Adamopoulou’s position on extreme pockets within the security forces. Today’s meeting may have a historical character with a very negative sign. Sixty years ago, a leader of a left-wing party had said from the floor of parliament by name – in a dictatorial regime – that Georgios Papadopoulos had provoked the tanks in Evros and had said “be careful because this gentleman will tie us up after 1.5 years”. ». Why do I mention it? No one then thinks of that regime to accuse an MP and say that it is defamatory. No. No such issue was raised. “Today, 60 years later, we are having this debate.”

“According to the Constitution, the MP can say that he wants to support his views, but he is not entitled to fall into the crime of defamation. With what my colleagues have said, they ask that you do not apply Article 61 par. 2. It is political hypocrisy. Colleague MeRA25 was her party’s rapporteur for the Constitution. From the minutes I read her positions on the subject “we support the simple and understandable that no privileged treatment should exist. No discrimination in the treatment of MPs and citizens. This is dictated by the principle of equality “, was the answer from the SW side.