News

Moldova - Experts comment on Sandu and Litvinenko's statements: Criticism or intimidation

Moldova (bbabo.net) - As an act of intimidation, according to a number of experts, one can interpret the statements of the authorities to the National Integrity Body, which discovered a conflict of interest in the actions of the President of the Constitutional Court. Dionis Chenushe wrote on his Facebook page that criticism from outside President Maia Sandu and Justice Minister Sergei Litvinenko are like a synchronized attack. He noted that the chairman of the CC, Domnika Manole, can challenge the NON's decision in court, while the authorities should have waited until the end of the proceedings and not made statements that could put pressure on NON inspectors, publika.md reports.

Macron spoke with Putin on the deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus

Doctor habilitat in the field of law Theodor Kirnats even stated that only the court has the right to speak out about the legality of the NON's decision: this is a matter for the future. "

On the other hand, Valery Pasha, chairman of the WatchDog.MD association, believes that Sandu and Litvinenko did the right thing by making comments:

"The fact that the President and the Minister of Justice took action is absolutely natural. Moreover, I do not understand why there was no official statement from Parliament about the illegal actions of the National Integrity Body."

As a reminder, on December 31, NON announced that it considered it a violation that Manole participated in assessing the constitutionality of the parliamentary order on the appointment of a judge of the Constitutional Court, which directly concerned her. Sandu qualified the conclusion of the NON as illegal, and Litvinenko called its publication on New Year's Eve "a clear disregard or non-recognition of the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court."

Manole herself said that she would do everything to bring to justice the inspector who drew up the report. NON declined to comment.

Moldova - Experts comment on Sandu and Litvinenko's statements: Criticism or intimidation