Experts' views on the disagreements between the NAC and the Prosecutor's Office: "A special meeting must be convened"
The statements made yesterday in Parliament by the director of the National Anti-Corruption Centre, Iulian Rusu, accusing the bodies of the General Prosecutor's Office and the Anti-Corruption Office of terminating criminal cases without explanations and delaying the handling of high-profile cases, are a signal that there are certain disagreements between these institutions, which could affect their work, experts say.
The head of the National Anti-Corruption Centre suggested yesterday at hearings in parliament that there may be some dissension between the institution and the prosecutor's office. These statements show that there is some kind of rivalry, which refers to the idea of creating a structure similar to the Romanian DNA, which would mean that the NAC in its current composition would no longer exist, anti-corruption policy expert Cristina Ciubotaru commented for Radio Moldova. In her opinion, the liquidation of the National Anti-Corruption Centre will not add value to the fight against corruption.
"If it is as Iulian Rusu says, it follows that there are misunderstandings on the files. Iulian Rusu apparently wants more involvement and courage from prosecutors on big cases that are given to the Prosecutor's Office and that the NAC helps to prosecute. If this is the case and there has been this misunderstanding for a long time, then it is also clear to me why the Prosecutor's Office is reverting to the old rhetoric of swallowing this institution, if you liquidate it, no one will blame you for not working on big cases."
Constitutional law expert Alexandru Arseni believes that reforms are needed in the prosecutor's office because its institutions would be dysfunctional.
"A special meeting must be convened urgently specifically on the issue of judicial authority as a whole and the placement of the Prosecutor's Office within the judiciary, then things will normalize and it will also fit into the process of unification of European legislation. Otherwise, we will be in a standstill and each institution will defend its tunic, but, in the end, the people will suffer."
Yesterday the head of the NAC, Iulian Rusu, complained about an inefficient relationship with the Anti-Corruption and General Prosecutor's Offices. During the hearing of his activity report in the plenary of the Parliament, he accused his colleagues in the two structures of not providing the necessary support, and in some cases ordering the termination of criminal cases without explanation. In the context of these statements, the head of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office and the Prosecutor General could be heard in the plenary of Parliament, stressed MEP Dan Perciun.
On the other hand, the Prosecutor's Office claims that the NAC director's allegations about certain "obstacles" in investigating cases of grand corruption have no legal reasoning. The General Prosecutor's Office and the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office have expressed their maximum openness and cooperation with the NAC in identifying the best solutions in investigating high-profile criminal cases, according to a reaction from the institution.
