KALLE LAANET ⟩ If I have intervened in proceedings, prove it!

Kalle Laanet and Andres Parmas. Photo: Madis Veltman

• The work of the prosecutor's office already resembles that of the courts in some respects.
• Yes, I have scrutinized the reasons for the delay in the proceedings concerning Slava Ukraini.

Over the weekend, a discussion started in the media over... yes – I don't really know which word to use – independence, or is it immunity, of the prosecutor's office. In any case, it is good that topics as important for statehood and security as the performance of law enforcement agencies are once again publicly discussed. Passionately, too! Preferably, however, without personal offense and with honesty, Justice Minister Kalle Laanet writes.

What is the prosecutor's office? An introduction to the institution is available on their website, which is the first paragraph of the first section of the Prosecutor's Office Act:

«The prosecutor's office is a government agency within the area of government of the Ministry of Justice, which participates in the planning of surveillance necessary to combat and detect criminal offenses, directs pre-trial criminal procedure and ensures the legality and efficiency thereof, represents public prosecution in court and performs other duties assigned to the prosecutor's office by law.»

The second paragraph of the same section says this:

«The prosecutor’s office is independent in the performance of its functions arising from law, and it acts pursuant to this Act, other Acts, and legislation issued on the basis thereof.»

The first part of the first section answers the question what?, the second part the question how?

However, choices and decisions are not made by an institution, but by the people within it. Fortunately, the third section of the law already speaks of people, meaning prosecutors.

And now to the main question: what is the relationship between the minister of justice, the minister responsible for the field (the prosecutor's office) as the law puts it, and prosecutors (who, after all, are the ones who make up the prosecutor's office)?

In the Prosecutor's Office Act, this minister has been mentioned 50 or so times, plus the Ministry of Justice a dozen times in more general terms. Each such "mention" imposes certain obligations on and assigns duties to the minister. The law can be read by anyone in Riigi Teataja and there is no point in reproducing it in writing here. The only reasonable way to carry out these duties is to constantly communicate with prosecutors, and most of all with the prosecutor general.

For example. Prosecutor General Andres Parmas has been actively seeking a new position. Would it be conceivable that we haven't discussed this topic with him? Of course, we have talked about it more than once and substantively, not just in passing or in «protocol» terms. We have also discussed other topics with the chief prosecutor: people burning out, leaving (wanting to leave), the work of prosecutors being misunderstood. Or explained that there are proceedings that just are under heightened public scrutiny and should be handled with greater than the utmost seriousness.

All of this has forced me to be more active than usual, and again, always by talking to people, not to the door or a wall of the institution.

Prove it, please

But have I intervened in specific proceedings? No. If someone claims otherwise, they must prove it too.

Yes, I have scrutinized – and continue to scrutinize – the reasons for the delay in the proceedings concerning Slava Ukraini. During more than a year and a half, prosecutors have not arrived at any known result. Why? My colleagues and I at the Ministry of Justice have offered all possible assistance, some of which has been used as well, albeit reluctantly, it seems. But there have been no real results.

Many people who have donated money in good faith want to know if their money has reached its destination. In the Riigikogu, MPs have asked me detailed questions and filed interpellations on this on at least three occasions in total. Where do I get the answers from? Is it from dreams or by asking prosecutors?

So far, I have used the second option and turned to the prosecutor's office. And I have also sometimes come to terms with pretty general answers, because I know what the secret of investigation is, or the planning of necessary procedural acts, which indeed are not for me to deal with.

As someone who has served in the police, I of course personally know also the police officers currently under criminal investigation. I make no secret of the fact that I have also met former police chiefs on a few special dates, but is that breaking the law? We don't discuss the substance of ongoing proceedings and why should we? If anyone suspects that former (or current) law enforcement officers have broken the law in this regard, I suggest that they contact the Internal Security Service. So should the prosecutor, if they have such information.

The last important question

And now, one more very important question related to the democratic state and security. If elected to the Riigikogu and/or appointed to the government, will I lose my rights as a citizen? Absolutely not.

I have rights and duties as a citizen. I also have duties and rights as a minister. So, for example, as a citizen, I expressed my opinion about the detention of Ain Seppik, and I can repeat it here: showcasing the 70-year-old law enforcement and Riigikogu veteran in handcuffs, and detaining him in this way altogether, was unnecessary and grossly infringing on his rights. Such a decision was made by the Supreme Court, not by me. In the case of Ain Seppik, I have not asked any questions to any prosecutor.

As an important side note, let me recall the words of our chancellor of justice, who back in 2019 emphasized in a letter to the Riigikogu: «The court, the prosecutor's office, and all other state institutions must be independent, professional, and honest, and act based on the law. Should it turn out that law enforcement agencies do not comply with the law but follow political guidelines, the rule of law will be at risk.»

I fully agree with this standpoint and can confidently affirm: as the minister responsible for the field, I have been doing the work that is my duty under law. I have never intervened in ongoing proceedings, so the allegation thereof is false. Prosecutors who claim the opposite are not speaking the truth.

And, one more and very important thing, which likewise concerns the internal security of our country. It has long been time for it to have become common understanding, both professionally as well as in general, and by society, that prosecutors (= the prosecutor's office) are an essential part of the administration of justice not only in representing public prosecution in court.

The court in all its instances rules on guilt and innocence. Although the prosecutor is the one who prosecutes – on behalf of the state – getting a person found guilty should not be their goal in its own right. Above all, supporting the administration of justice should be it.

Although the work of the prosecutor's office already resembles that of the courts in some respects, it will definitely remain an important part of the executive branch, alongside its equivalents. This principle derives from our Constitution.

In conclusion, I can say that I have always appreciated the work of the prosecutor's office, and hence also of prosecutors, and I understand how difficult it is. However, all public officials, especially those whose work may have a significant impact on people's lives and destinies, are also subject to supervision under law. This now is my duty as the minister of justice, and I discharge it with vigilance and a sense of duty even when I encounter unexpected obstacles in the process.