The MP of the New Democracy, Makis Voridis, gave a wide-ranging interview on the ERTnews’ “10 with tuna” show.

He referred to the case of the OPEKEPE, the procedure of the preliminary investigation committee proposed by the PASOK, but also on the function of MPs in relation to the public administration.

Speaking about the European Public Prosecutor’s Office file, he argued that “criminal files cannot be subject to political weighting”. He stressed that the assessment should be made on purely legal criteria. As he said, “evaluation of the criminal material, whether or not there is something to investigate, that is where the criminal competence of the Parliament is exercised.”

He further explained that, under Article 86 of the Constitution, the transmission is “without delay, without criminal evaluation”. It distinguished this procedure from others, such as waiver of immunity. At the same time, he raised a question of substance about PASOK’s proposal, saying it should be examined “whether it is based on evidence and whether it is correct”.

On the proposal, he noted that it includes ten acts with different legal bases. “In the ten cases I can see three of them, I have reservations about the others,” he said. He added that “PASOK itself says that there is no evidence of committing criminal acts, but we put them in.”

He stood by two charges in particular that he called unfounded. “These two acts are wrongly put in the way they are,” he said, stressing that criminal procedure requires clarity and not general connections.

On the procedure in the House, he made it clear that “the motion is either accepted in its entirety or rejected in its entirety.” He left open the possibility of further study of the file before taking a final position.

For Notis Mitarakis

Makis Voridis referred extensively to Notis Mitarakis and the charge of moral incitement, which he rejected.

He said “the starting point of the moral incitement is Mitarakis”, expressing his disagreement. He clarified that this is a simple transmission of a citizen’s email and not an intervention.

He outlined the process, saying: “an email comes into the office stating that two producers feel that they have been wronged” and is then forwarded to the relevant authorities.

He stressed that “incitement requires that you persuade a person with formality to do an unlawful act”. He added that “there are no instigations by transmitting an email”.

In his assessment, there is no criminal element and the concept of liability is being over-interpreted.

For George Livanos

He also referred to George Livanos, arguing that his act was legal.

The case involves farmers who missed a deadline for subsidies. As he said, “they missed the deadline because their scholar had a health problem.”

He explained that a internal appeal process was followed and that the minister approved the department’s recommendation.

“The minister has the right to consider hierarchical appeals and adjudicate administrative matters,” he said. He also stressed that the decision has not been overturned.

He concluded by saying: “nothing illegal has been committed,” dismissing the charges.

He also offered general criticism, noting that “you can’t come and say I don’t evaluate anything, it came to me from the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.”

On the waiver of immunity

The MP also spoke about the waiver of immunity. He stressed that it is not related to guilt, but to whether an act is related to the duties of the MP.

“The constitution provides for the lifting when the offence is not related to duties or political activity,” he said.

He stressed that political activity includes contacts with citizens. “Forwarding a citizen’s request to the administration by a member of parliament is part of his or her political activity.”

Referring to recent votes, he noted that “there has been no acceptance that there is evidence of guilt.” He said the MPs themselves wanted to be judged by the judiciary.

He also left open the question of changes to the institutional framework.

On the executive state

He also referred to the executive state. He said it is not a “magic system” but a coordination mechanism.

He said it includes the Council of Ministers, the General Secretariat for Coordination and government planning.

He claimed that “they have produced significant results”. But he acknowledged that there are problems, citing the Land Registry as an example.

“The fact that there are problems does not mean there has not been improvement,” he said.

On Tsipras’ manifesto

Finally, Makis Voridis also commented on Alexis Tsipras’ manifesto. He described it as an attempt to bring together different currents.

“It is a dialogue on how to converge three different currents,” he said.

He added that “this has not been possible in the last 70 years,” expressing doubt about the success of the project.

.