\n<\/p>\n
The tension that has been building up these past few weeks over the government\u2019s handling of the February 2023 Tempe rail tragedy has been way above the norm. Every recent public opinion poll has shown that the majority of Greeks feel that what needs to be done to expose the entire truth about the incident and to punish those responsible, no matter how high up the ladder they may be, is not being done.<\/p>\n
Instead of defusing the situation, the prime minister\u2019s now notorious interview on Alpha TV on January 29 complicates matters even more, as even close associates of his appear unwilling \u2013 or are unable \u2013 to understand what he was going for with his seemingly placatory tone. For what else but utter confusion can possibly be indicated by the Shipping Ministry\u2019s unconscionable decision to condemn the Greek Ombudsman\u2019s scathing report on the deadly migrant shipwreck off the coast of the Peloponnese in June 2023, the third blot \u2013 after the wiretapping affair \u2013 on New Democracy\u2019s record since it was elected in 2019? And this is even more preposterous given that this ministry is helmed by a politician who is regarded as moderate and who, as a former European Union commissioner, has a very clear understanding of what \u201cindependent authority\u201d means in a modern European democracy.<\/p>\n
What lies behind all of this pent-up tension, I believe, is a lack of trust in the government. It is a crisis of confidence that urgently needs to be addressed before it evolves into a condemnation of the entire political system, as was the case in the terrible two-year period following the deadly shooting of Alexandros Grigoropoulos in December 2008. People need to be convinced that the truth will ultimately shine through, no matter how high up the political ladder the culpable parties may be. And there is a way for this to happen, even if the overly protective provisions of Article 86 of the Greek Constitution \u2013 effectively providing politicians with immunity from prosecution \u2013 are not abolished. Such a move seems highly unlikely as long as the government majority shapes the composition of Parliament\u2019s special committees. Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis\u2019 assurances that the government will not stand in the way of any committee investigating the actions of government officials are not enough. What matters is what New Democracy\u2019s MPs do at the end of the day \u2013 and we already know what that will be from the 25 investigative committees and seven preliminary inquiries conducted by Parliament in the past few years.<\/p>\n
The most recent ones on the illegal wiretaps and on the Tempe tragedy are a case in point: Typically selected from the ranks of the ruling party\u2019s staunchest loyalists (to maintain control), the presiding officials tailor the proceedings to serve the interests of those in power, ensuring that the desired outcome is achieved at all costs \u2013 often at the expense of the truth. To this end, they exclude key witnesses, withhold critical evidence under the pretext of confidentiality and intimidate or harass any \u201cunwelcome\u201d witnesses who make it into the room. I am sure that Christos Rammos, the head of Greece\u2019s privacy watchdog, ADAE, would have a lot to say about the treatment he received two years ago from New Democracy\u2019s MPs on the committee for the wiretapping affair. So, even if MItsotakis was quite sincere when he assured the public that the government would not impede the work of such committees, we should not have any great expectations of them.<\/p>\n
I thought, therefore, of reviving a proposal I had made in 2009 to address a similar situation. It is a proposal that could help defuse the toxic climate, without violating any part of Article 86 or of Law 3126\/2003 on the criminal culpability of ministers. I would, therefore, recommend that the parties in Parliament agree to refer any ministers, associates and deputies about whom there are serious indications of involvement in the Tempe tragedy either directly or indirectly, through their actions or omissions straight to the five-member judicial council and the special court for such matters. This would involve a decision to establish the required pre-investigative committee, but without waiting for it to conduct the customary preliminary inquiry. According to this proposal\u2019s rationale, the committee would immediately request the referral of all implicated individuals \u2013 without exception \u2013 without issuing its own findings, but simply citing the existing reports and any evidence emerging from the ongoing investigation. Subsequently, with a unanimous decision, Parliament would refer those involved to the special court for ministers, without further debate.<\/p>\n
From that point onward, as per the prescribed procedures, the case would first be handled by the five-member judicial council before heading to the special court, as stipulated in Article 86 of the Constitution. Composed of three Supreme Court justices and two Council of State judges \u2013 five jurists of presumed experience \u2013 this panel would appoint one of its Supreme Court members as the investigating judge. Based on the findings of this investigator, the council would then issue a ruling, either dismissing those for whom it deems there is insufficient evidence of guilt or referring the remaining individuals to trial before the 13-member special court for ministers. It is worth noting that, according to the Constitution, the members of the special court for ministers (comprising seven Supreme Court justices and six Council of State judges) are all selected by lottery in a public session of Parliament. The selection is made from the sitting senior judges of the respective courts at the time the prosecution is initiated.<\/p>\n
The advantages of this proposal are, I believe, self-evident: The progress of the process would not rely on the will of the parliamentary majority or the stance of the opposition parties but solely on the judgment of senior judges. This would not only save valuable time but, more importantly, provide tangible proof of the government\u2019s \u2013 and the entire political system\u2019s \u2013 determination to uncover the truth, the whole truth, about one of the most horrific crimes in our modern history.<\/p>\n
Nikos Alivizatos is a professor emeritus of constitutional law at Athens University.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n