The explanations given by Antero Habicht, director of the Riigikogu Chancellery, to my colleague Madis Hindre as to why it was necessary to dismiss a long-serving adviser to the Riigikogu Economic Affairs Committee seem as if they were lifted from the comedy series "Yes, Minister."

Nor was the five-page dismissal directive signed by Habicht any better: the female official, who had worked for 32 years and was fired just five months before retirement, was accused of damaging the Riigikogu's reputation, creating a hole in the state budget, communicating with the press and more.

One thing Habicht is deeply mistaken about is assigning sole responsibility for the flawed law to a single official. Laws are not passed by one official. Laws are passed by the Riigikogu. In this particular case, 51 members voted in favor of the flawed law on December 3 last year.

Yes, even if the official had previously made mistakes in her work, such severe punishment is disproportionate. And especially callous on a human level, as the official — who had worked in the Riigikogu for 32 years — had only a few months left until retirement. Instead of thanks, she was sent away in disgrace. I do not know her personally, but speaking off the record with politicians, one hears only praise about her. She did not deserve such treatment.

Habicht appears particularly troubled by the fact that the official dared to give a comment to a journalist. "Secondly, the article published in the media gave the impression that she shifted all the blame onto others," the Chancellery director said. And in the directive he added: "The official's statements can be interpreted as one-sided criticism and disparagement of the employer, which affects the reputation and credibility of the Riigikogu and its committees."

But what did the official actually say in the Eesti Ekspress article? "A law is not a poem or a newspaper article where it does not matter if a word is wrong. Time must be given for a law to be completed and mature. Otherwise, the potential damage can be very large."

Excuse me, but that is a very harmless, even somewhat witty comment. It is not directed at any specific person. It was not demeaning to anyone. Far from damaging the reputation of the Riigikogu or its Chancellery.

Therefore, it is hard to shake the feeling that Habicht's motives lie elsewhere.

What is certain is that after this incident, it will become even more difficult for journalists to obtain direct information from officials. This has already become much harder in recent years, but why would anyone now dare to say anything at all if even an innocuous comment can lead to dismissal?

In the past, private media used to award an "enemy of the press" title, which unfortunately at times turned into a petty tool of revenge. But on some occasions, the award was deserved. If it were handed out now, the director of the Riigikogu Chancellery would be as strong a favorite for the title as Johannes Klæbo was in cross-country skiing before the Winter Olympics.

P.S. In one respect, however, the director of the Riigikogu Chancellery is right. When asked whether the decision to dismiss the official improved or damaged the Riigikogu's reputation, he replied: "As long as there is public debate on this issue, I think it rather damages the reputation." There is no "rather" about it — it absolutely does!

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!