Justice minister: I have been misunderstood

Minister of Justice Raivo Aeg (Isamaa). Photo: Mihkel Maripuu

Minister of Justice Raivo Aeg (Isamaa) told the “Otse Postimehest” webcast on Monday that in turning to the prosecution, his aim was not to muzzle the press and that he has been misunderstood. Aeg finds that while tailing now former Minister of Education and Research Mailis Reps’ (Center Party) official car was justified, pictures of Reps’ children should not have been published by the tabloid Õhtuleht.

“A cabinet that lies, incites hatred, insults and intimidates the Estonian people does not only reflect on its individual members but also the prime minister.” The sentence is from an address the Estonian Union of Media Enterprises recently sent to the PM. Why are you intimidating and threatening investigative journalism?

No, far from it. Investigative journalism, the free press and a democratic society are inseparable and belong together. Talking about where all this started – misuse of public resources, with some even talking about corruption – I have always been critical. I have also always commended investigative reporters for helping out law enforcement, unmasking misuse and violations. It is very welcome.

But I think I know where this is going. I said during the government press conference on Thursday that I asked the Office of the Prosecutor General to provide a legal analysis of the situation. Õhtuleht published a number of images illustrating the minister’s misuse of her official vehicle but that also depicted Mailis Reps’ children. I believe we should not privately follow children for long periods of time only to publish pictures of them in the media in a country that has rule of law.

What did you write in your SMS message to Prosecutor General Andres Parmas?

I cannot remember it word-for-word, but I asked where his office stands regarding potential private surveillance having taken place. Surveillance of the children. That was all.

Did Mr. Parmas reply?

No, we have not found the time to discuss it yet. Perhaps they are still analyzing the case. It has been a busy day, but I’m sure I will get a reply.

The Estonian Association of Journalists compared your SMS to the prosecutor general to the so-called phone rights of the Soviet occupation. How do you comment?

How should the justice minister and the prosecution that lies in his administrative area communicate? Using SMS messages, phone calls and correspondence. All are ways of communicating. We are not sending forms back and forth. I did not order anything launched, terminated or held back.

Did reporters have the right to investigative use of the minister’s company car?

Absolutely. Had the vehicle been photographed parked near the school gate, behind the kindergarten fence or even next to where Reps lives but without the children depicted. It is very good when journalists are keeping an eye on use of state property. The press needs to maintain corresponding efforts. But placing minors in the public eye for the purpose of creating suspense, placing them in a disadvantaged position – that is unacceptable.

How could reporters have investigated the minister misusing state property by having a ministry car ferry her children around without involving said children?

There was enough information. Ministry officials had given explanations. The former driver had given a lengthy interview, describing in detail how it worked. There was easily enough material to prove it.

Mailis Reps initially tried to claim that her kids take the train. Earlier articles of Reps using her driver to ferry the kids around and advisers as babysitters had simply faded away. Perhaps it was the only way to bring the truth to light?

Even if you tail the vehicle and take photos of the kids, do you absolutely need to print those photos? Once it was clear Reps was being difficult and evasive, they could have simply shown her the evidence. But why was it necessary to drag them in front of the public and cause them harm I still cannot understand.

Therefore, reporters were right in following the vehicle to try and find out where it goes, while the paper should not have published photos of the children?

Having discovered potentially unethical conduct – absolutely, as it is the role of investigative journalism to keep society clean of corruption and misuse of authority.

Did you also support the measure employed to ascertain that truth?

Of course, one needs to talk to people, take statements or conduct interviews.

And tail that vehicle?

If it is there somewhere, indeed. It is a public vehicle. Things would be very different were we talking about Mailis Reps’ personal vehicle. I do not see elements of criminal offense in following a ministry vehicle. The investigative press monitors people’s comings and goings and what they get up to. We have never suggested it is a crime. However, I repeat that publishing pictures of Mailis Reps’ children who are in no way involved in this was wrong.

Until now, one has rather been left with the impression that you did not like Õhtuleht’s surveillance activity which is what you asked the prosecution to look into. Now, you are merely talking about photos in the paper.

Yes, I asked the prosecution for an analysis. There is nothing illegal or even reprehensible about consulting with the prosecutor general – the top jurist in Estonia and a former judge – and asking his opinion on certain things. I cannot imagine it being a violation of any kind.

You do admit it has played out unfortunately?

What was perhaps unfortunate is that I did not say enough at the press conference. I should have gone further and explained what I meant. On the other hand, coming now to the address by the media organization, we could have consulted beforehand and they could have asked me what I was thinking. I cannot criticize the statement of an organization representing its members. I have never questioned the investigative press and its efforts to determine misuse or criticized it in any way.

What you are being criticized for is an attempt to muzzle investigative journalism when it is looking into corruption. Have you been misunderstood?

How can it be suggested that I’m looking to muzzle anyone if I have been saying for the last ten minutes or more that I firmly support the investigative press highlighting misuse and signs of corruption? However, allow me to emphasize once more that children are not to blame for their parents’ actions and mustn’t be punished through them.

In summary, you have been misunderstood?

I believe so, yes.