Transmitting a citizen’s request is a political activity, Notis Mitarakis<\/b> stressed, during the debate in the Plenary Session of the Parliament on the waiver of immunity of 13 NWD MPs<\/b> referring to the two new files on the OPEKEPE case.<\/p>\n
The New Democracy MP for Chios asked for his immunity to be lifted, stressing that his office’s involvement was limited solely to forwarding a citizen’s request to the relevant ministry, “without judgment or encouragement” and “this is where our involvement ends.”<\/b><\/p>\n
Returning to the events of 2021, he described how his colleagues in the Chios office forwarded, on his standing instructions, a letter from a competent scientist-forester concerning submissions by livestock farmers<\/b> to be examined by the competent authorities. As he pointed out, this constituted the totality of his involvement, which – he argued – “is undeniably evident from the file”. <\/p>\n
Mitarakis pointed out that this action is part of the core of a MP’s political activity<\/b>, citing Article 62 of the constitution and noting that “forwarding correspondence, conveying petitions and requests of citizens, is a political activity”. <\/p>\n
He stressed that the role of the MP is not exhausted within Parliament, but extends to daily contact with society and the administration<\/b>, clarifying that “we are not talking about a buffet here” but an institutional obligation. At the same time, he referred to international practices, noting that “the MP is the first advocate of the citizen” and that similar practices are applied in advanced democracies, where MPs’ offices systematically manage citizens’ requests. <\/p>\n
On a political level, Mitarakis said that although he believes that “the lifting of immunity does not stand up legally”, he is asking for the procedure to proceed “for political and personal reasons”<\/b> in order to preserve his name. However, he criticised the prevailing climate, stressing that“politicians have a presumption of guilt instead of a presumption of innocence”<\/b>. In closing, he warned of the consequences that this case may have on institutional functioning, noting that “we are creating this case law today” and that the role of MPs and the relationship of trust with citizens may be questioned in the future.<\/p>\n