On April 14, the Estonian parliament voted on whether to strip independent MP Tõnis Mölder of parliamentary immunity. At least 51 votes were required, but only 44 voted in favor of lifting immunity. 

Mölder has been suspected of soliciting a bribe, agreeing to accept a bribe, and committing fraud as a public official.

Former Prosecutor General Aas noted that, with this decision, the Riigikogu made legal and political history in Estonia, as never before has a request to lift an MP's parliamentary immunity been rejected. This right of the Riigikogu is enshrined in the Constitution primarily to protect members of parliament.

"In the background, one can sense a generally critical attitude toward the prosecutor's office and law enforcement authorities. The criticism that has grown in recent years may have been the catalyst that influenced this decision," Aas said.

Both prosecutors and legislature can be blamed

According to him, both the Estonian parliament and the prosecutor's office need to consider how to move forward from here. "The hope is that neither side will take the situation too emotionally or continue the confrontation, but instead can take a step back and analyze why it turned out this way."

Aas said that some of the criticism directed at the prosecutor's office can be agreed with, as there have been setbacks in recent years, especially in major criminal cases. It may also raise questions as to why attention is sometimes focused on smaller and more ambiguous matters.

On the other hand, if there are shortcomings in the legal system, this also reflects failures on the part of the legislature itself, Aas noted. "I agree with my colleague Allar Jõks that, in a sense, the Riigikogu also expressed a lack of confidence in itself with this decision."

The former Prosecutor General recalled that Tõnis Mölder has stated that he is unlikely to run in the next elections and that his mandate will end next spring. After that, it would be possible to bring a potential indictment to court. "With this decision, parliament did not administer justice—it did not declare Tõnis Mölder either innocent or guilty—but found that this court case cannot begin while he is a member of parliament."

The controversy of amending the Anti-Corruption Act

Another legal issue that has recently stirred debate in the Estonian parliament is the amendment of the Anti-Corruption Act, or rather the stalling of that amendment. Justice Minister Liisa-Ly Pakosta (Eesti 200) suddenly withdrew a government-initiated bill to decriminalize some violations of procedural restrictions.

A government-initiated bill to amend the Anti-Corruption Act, which has been in force since 2013, was scheduled for its third reading in the Riigikogu on Wednesday.

The most notable change was that a violation of procedural restrictions would no longer be considered a criminal offense unless it involved at least €40,000 in damage or benefit.

Aas noted that amending this law is certainly necessary. "The withdrawn bill was actually broader," he said. "When the current government coalition agreement was signed, it was stated that this law needs to be clarified. Incidentally, this week a GRECO report was published assessing the effectiveness of the fight against corruption in Estonia, and an entire chapter was devoted to the fact that this law is unclear."

Aas added that his personal experience as a defense attorney shows that in recent years, court cases concerning violations of procedural restrictions have mostly ended in acquittals. Different courts have interpreted these cases differently, but in matters that have reached the Supreme Court, it has even been stated that the defendants were not public officials to whom the procedural restrictions applied. All of this indicates that the Anti-Corruption Act is unclear when it comes to punishing individuals.

The law should have clearer norms

Aas explained that the legislature has adopted an unclear law that allows for very broad interpretation. "People often only find out at the moment of arrest that they are considered public officials. Clear norms would also help prosecutors and the police."

According to Aas, the problem is that a violation of procedural restrictions or a conflict of interest does not in itself yet constitute corruption. In general understanding, corruption is the abuse of public power for private interests or the preferential treatment of one's close associates. Under the current Estonian law, a procedural restriction constitutes a purely formal conflict of interest, without even assessing motive or whether damage was caused or benefit gained.

In some court cases, the prosecutor's office has gone to great lengths to prove how close people are to one another. "In my view, the fight against corruption has gone in the wrong direction if court cases primarily focus on proving personal relationships between people," said former Prosecutor General Aas.

"If we look even at Estonian lawyers, I think that 80 percent of lawyers come from the same university, and in principle one could always say that all lawyers are connected to one another. The same is true if you look at doctors."

--

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