Prosecutor General Andres Parmas has complained of political interference in his work, while Minister of Justice Kalle Laanet (Reform) has commenced supervisory proceedings into the former, ostensibly over his office's handling of some cases, most notably a high-profile police pensions case.

Some prosecutors have reportedly divided into two camps on support for either of the two figures, while Laanet has also pointed towards Parmas' recent job applications – which were ultimately unsuccessful – to both the International Criminal Court (ICC) and as chair of the Tallinn Circuit Court, with around a year left in his term as prosecutor general.

Appearing on ETV politics show "Esimene stuudio", Kõve speculated on the likelihood of anyone stepping down for the sake of keeping the peace even if neither party believes it has been in error. But he also noted that reaching an agreement on this would be up to the parties involved themselves.

Kõve said: "The justice minister has statutory oversight on the actions of court chairpersons, but they do not have that right over the administration of justice. So far as I am aware, no Estonian justice ministers have ever interfered in the administration of justice, or instructed judges with regard to their rulings."

Kõve stressed what he said was a need for caution in communications of these kind, asserting that the minister has the right to be interested in the progress of investigations conducted by the prosecution, yet should not dictate specific actions, on the grounds that this would potentially interfere with the independence of the prosecutor's office.

As to "Esimene stuudio" host Mirko Ojakivi's question on what Kõve would say if Laanet called for an inquiry into a Supreme Court decision, in the case of any dispute between the president's office and the government, Kõve said: "Well, I would say to him, 'Dear Kalle, wait for the decision, you'll read about it'."

The head of state has the constitutional right to decline to give his assent to legislation, and has indeed exercised this right in recent times.

Kõve acknowledged that the contretemps involving Laanet and Parmas has damaged Estonia's legal system as, again, it has questions about the prosecutor's office's independence, though identified a silver lining in the situation in that the saga has brought to public attention the scope of the Minister of Justice's authority over the prosecutor's office.

Kõve said he hopes for a thorough discussion and possible legislative clarifications to prevent similar disputes in the future, reiterating that prosecutors must independently decide whether to initiate and conclude criminal cases without political influence.

A parliamentary inquiry commission might be the best way to resolve disputes over jurisdiction at the highest level, acknowledging the scope for bias but here but considering it the best option nonetheless.

Ojakivi asked Kõve what his response would be if Minister Laanet sought to "assist" him in his work somehow, to which Kõve replied, "Let's just say, we can manage on our own."

Ojakivi also clarified that the Tartu-based Supreme Court does not report to the Minister of Justice, as it is a constitutional institution, but recast the question as to whether the justice minister could call to account the chairs of the first-tier county/administrative courts, and the second-tier circuit courts.

Kõve explained that while this type of contact is permissible, the free functioning of court management is vital.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!