Faced with a “moral and political dilemma” as to whether to support the waivers of immunity for MPs in the OPEKEPE is Makis Voridis.
In his statements to Direct’s protothema and George Eugenides, The former minister argued that the relevant dicographies lack a substantial legal basis, while he described the resignations of government officials following their transmission as “excessive”.
As he said, “I have a dilemma to vote for the waivers of immunity, they are completely legally untenable“, noting that reading the files “no acts justifying such heavy political consequences as seizures of ministers”.
Voridis insisted that in the case involving him “there was no objective finding”, calling on those criticising him to determine “what was his illegal behaviour”. “Someone needs to tell me what I did. Is there any damage to the state?” he said, stressing that political acts cannot be subject to criminal assessment.
Referring to his resignation, as his name was included in the first OPEKEPE case, he clarified that he was not asked to resign, but he submitted it himself, as “I cannot tolerate the slightest suspicion that I am using the power of the minister.” At the same time, he noted that the Commission of Inquiry “did not reveal any illegal act” on his part.
Commenting on the resignations of other government officials following the OPEKEPE files, he referred to“a process of automating resignations, even without any substantial content”, adding that “there must be an evaluation and not automatic reactions”.
She also placed particular emphasis on the role of Parliament, noting that MPs have “an obligation to individually review the files” and stressed that when a case involves the exercise of parliamentary duties “no criminal prosecution can be accepted”. “I don’t want to find myself accused because I forwarded a citizen’s request,” he said.
At the same time, he warned that a generalised acceptance of requests to waive immunity would set a dangerous precedent: “If we vote for the lifting, we are essentially saying that with an email a member of parliament can be found accused.”
Voridis also referred to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office’s files, noting that criticism of them “does not constitute a denigration”, while acknowledging that European prosecutors are “remarkable officials”, which – as he said – “makes the evaluation of cases even more demanding”.
On the political front, he rejected scenarios of a rift between the Grand Maximus and the ND parliamentary group, while leaving open the discussion of broader institutional changes, such as the possible incompatibility between ministerial and parliamentary status, saying that if this happens it would be a “world-changing reform
.
