Strong criticism of Zoe Konstantopoulou was voiced by the lawyer for the Plakias family, Leonidas Koumpouras, following a confrontation between the president of Freedom Voyage had with relatives of the victims during the trial regarding the Tempi.
Speaking on the Thessaloniki radio station Status FM 107.7, she described the tension between the Vlachou family and the president of the Freedom Movement, noting that he was particularly negatively impressed by the fact that she “spoke disparagingly” about a fellow lawyer, a fact that provoked even stronger reactions from relatives in attendance.
He complained that Zoe Konstantopoulou is not acting in a legally appropriate manner during the trial. He specifically emphasized that the main problem with the proceedings is her constant interventions on issues unrelated to the subject matter of the trial. As he noted, “all of my colleagues and the overwhelming majority of the relatives want the proceedings to move forward,” however, this is not happening because Ms. Konstantopoulou “constantly takes a stance on unrelated issues or matters of a political nature.”
She speaks for two hours on unrelated issues
He made special mention of her hour-long speeches, saying that “a legal argument can be presented in one or two minutes, or even three,” while she “speaks for two hours and talks about irrelevant issues.” This causes delays, provokes discontent among the victims’ relatives, and hampers the work of the attorneys participating in the trial. “There is a strong backlash from all my colleagues,” he said.
The Plakias family’s attorney argued that the president of the Freedom Movement is appearing in the proceedings in a dual capacity, as both a lawyer and the leader of a political party. “She must manage this dual role herself and allow the proceedings to continue,” he stated, adding that “she is not in Parliament; she is in a criminal court.”
Referring to reports that Ms. Konstantopoulou devoted a large part of her statement to issues such as OPEKEPE, Mr. Koumpouras noted that such topics are unrelated to the substance of the trial and emphasized that the bench has the necessary procedural tools to bring the discussion back to the subject matter of the proceedings.
