PSD chairman Dragnea: Debate on president’s suspension still on. Kovesi’s revocation is no victory for anyone, he claims
Chairman of the ruling Social Democrat Party, Liviu Dragnea, has stated that the revocation of the anti-graft chief prosecutor Kovesi is no victory to anyone.
„Her revocation is no victory for anyone. It is a small extent for what should happen for the next period. The fact that we are living together with an occult system, is no joy. There will be joy when the country is set free,” Dragnea said.
Regarding the coming period when procedures to appoint a new DNA head are to start, the SocDem leader says the entire approach of the judiciary system must change. „I only voice hope that, at some point, part of the prosecutors in Romania will be able to act in good faith to find the truth, while also observing the law and being independent. Their independence has been ruined by some moves, pressures and they should not act on political grounds (…) Talk to the lawyers, they all say they have the feeling that their arguments don’t matter (…) Only if the approach changes, the new laws will come into force,” he argued.
As for the intention to suspend the head of state, Dragnea revealed the debate has been delayed but not closed down. „If we take that decision, we’ll present it at that time. It’s a serious discussion, it’s no game, but unfortunately the president has proven for a long time that he is not observing the Constitution and he is not respecting his responsibilities, he has no power to be a president above parties who should be a mediator among the state powers,” Dragnea pointed out.
He criticized the head of state for waiting 30 days to recall Kovesi, arguing you don’t need 30 days to read the entire reasoning. „At the second the CCR ruling has been published in the Official Gazette, the president has broken the Constitution,” the PSD chair opined.
Asked to comment the fact that Klaus Iohannis had not made himself the announcement of dismissing Kovesi, but asked his spokeswoman to do it, Dragnea argued the head of state should have been the one to go public with the announcement.