Märt Rask (63), sworn lawyer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and one-time minister of justice, says in an interview that the land exchange court case ought to be viewed as a multi layer pie – one that can’t be cut through with just one bite. In his estimation, this will be remembered as a milestone even thirty years from now.
You left Reform Party in 2005, after ending the job at Supreme Court, and you never returned, Why?
There are no legal hurdles to it, by while working as a lawyer this must not be tied to any party. Legal troubles aren’t tied to profession of faith or party convictions.
If a client, say, is from Centre Party and he will hesitate to come to a lawyer who belongs to Reform Party... With a doctor, one might say that the party does not matter, as long as he can do the surgery. Legal issues, however, often come as well as social issues – with some political colouring to it. Here, party membership might start to interfere.
The Reform Party, long in power, was for a while quite embattled and it felt like its star was going down. Now, in the spring, it was fist at elections again. How do they do that?
I think the credit of trust given by voters is like a water-melon, something big and round. It can only be redistributed, not reproduced. If someone does better, another suffers.
I think Reform Party, being citizen-centred, still is attractive for voters. Even with his mistakes and quirks, I think Andrus Ansip still was very good at being prime minister. But people get bored with anything. Nothing doing, this is not marriage till death do us part.
Mr Ansip was replaced with a fresh face and now they can go on governing for a longer while?
I’m inclined to think there will be no powerful new party that could assume governmental responsibility, after elections.
I do not believe in project parties. One may play with protest votes, but whoever protests will not build, will not create. That kind of a voter is destructive, actually.
How do look at Siim Kallas coming to be prime minister and as good as fled back to Brussels?
I’m the kind of a young pensioner political observer; I have not forgotten about the back rooms. The stitches were showing.
If, figuratively speaking, childhood follies are being brought to the surface, such as have no legal, political not any other meaning, and comments are demanded, everything is being cast into some king of a setting.
In the 1990ies, people came into politics to make Estonia, to create the state, to reorganise the society. It’s different than today. The politics tgat are pursued today, when it comes to quality it is quite another matter.
Siim Kallas is not a person to become bitter, and then to become reticent and ill-willed.
Considering Siim’s authority, his live experience, he could be an excellent consultant, or a totally standalone person – like we have the Chancellor of Justice, Auditor General, the President. But in politics there clearly has been a change of generations. Once this has happened, it is highly unlikely that the clock can be turned back.
As you noticed: as accusations were rasied against him, none of the younger generation politicians rushed to defend Siim.
I read in the Wader (Müürileht) editorial that «we have an egreement in the society that social workers, culture personalities, and other soft-power people are not worthy of equal pay with businessmen and politicians». That true?
Talking about pay of people from various walks of life like businessmen and politicians, I think the pay should grant some dignity in life. But when we come to the €1,000 minimal wage that [Mr Indrek] Neivelti then that’s like Mr Ansip and us making it to the five richest [European countries – edit]. That can’t be forced to happen. This is setting goals. Goals can be criticised, mocked... but if these aren’t set, you can’t give direction to the thinking in society.
If you want to do fine arts, you must consider that in fine arts the best make much money. But, then, many create art thru toil, misery and hunger. If young people aren’t explained that, they may be seriously disappointed.
There must be no hopes that diploma alone will put bread on the table. That’s an illusion, nothing doing.
What do you think of the land exchange court decision?
Here we have a cult of a dispute, like we once had a case that everybody knew: the so-called Desintegraator court case i.e. the Johannes Hint procedure. In history, certain issues will stand and, probably, in thirty years people will still know that the land exchange process was a milestone.
Lawyer’s ethics would prescribe to not comment topics that you haven’t seen the dossier materials of. I haven’t. I can say this: for these people under investigations all these years – I dare not say whether they are guilty or not – but even if they are guilty, then being under the state’s repressive apparatus already is heavy punishment.
That’s a landmark case where the problems went from legal to moral to ethical. Thus, a many layered pie, not to be cut with one bite.
The other aspect – I think the media paid unacceptably much attention to the proceedings at its initial stages and unacceptably little attention to the case itself – whether because of the volume of the material or some other reasons. Therefore, when reading all the articles published in Eesti Ekspress or elsewhere, this was pure PR-policy whereby the public understanding of justice was being prepared.
Such a legth of proceedings is not fitting for a rule of law. A state should be able to take decisions faster. About the European Court, I do not know – will they accept the case or not.
As former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, were you not disturbed by what Rait Maruste said in Postimees, that the decision smacks of «soviet prosecution kind of punishment mentality»?
That was his emotion – when people are judged guilty, they are also punished.
As former Chief Justice of Supreme Court I may say that Supreme Court justices do their job irrespective of media pressure, political ambitions or society’s sense of justice. They are independent. I know of no case or instance where we might suspect the supreme justices were somehow tweaked or twisted. That’s their inner conviction – it may be erroneous, but it’s theirs. And in the society, it has thus been agreed that Supreme Court is the highest court.
Rait Maruste’s wording of this being «prosecution kind» was a crafty choice of words. The way I read it, he was meaning that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court passed a decision pleasing to the Prosecutor’s Office.
But even if he means that Supreme Court passed its judgement as extension of Prosecutor’s Office, as if, or whatever – during the time that if was Chief Justice, people have been heard at public session, at various meetings… But never has it been, to me and I dare say towards any other supreme judge that do like this, let’s make a deal etc. There are no such things in Estonia.
Interestingly, Prosecutor’s office has been unwilling to publicly comment on such a landmark decision?
They have not said much as there’s lots of analysis still to be done. And the Prosecutor’s Office shirt front isn’t totally clean as well. When Igor Gräzin spoke out on the length of it all, well the legal procedure was not long actually. For the volume, there was no overmuch delay time-wise.
What will the land exchange decision be remembered by? That well-known persons were judged guilty based on evidence gained in ways somewhat suspicious, or that indeed a landmark in fight against corruption?
Both. Of the decision, everyone may take what he pleases. Surely, this can also be a signal of Supreme Court taking a clear stand: granting and accepting of gratuities, as well as of bribes, are not allowed in Estonia. Regarding evidence etc it is very difficult to develop a public discussion, as this takes specialist knowledge. Unquestionably, greater clarity should here be created between ministry of justice, Prosecutor’s Office, other legal authorities, and the parliament. It is not okay that [the evidence] is at times usable and at times it is not.