In the wake of the latter incident representatives of both the Conservative People's Party of Estonia (EKRE, more specifically the party's leader, Martin Helme) and the Social Democratic Party (SDE, in MP Eduard Odinets) have expressed their surprise over the saga's timing, and have asked why such a long-standing potential corruption violation has only now come to light.

In some respects, this question is a moot point, as criticizing the motives in publicizing what is a clear act of corruption would not be entirely right and proper.

That such facts and actions can be publicized, even if that exposure comes late or even at a seemingly convenient time for another party, is a good thing.

For a start, the violator, and the violation, themselves merit condemnation and attention, rendering everything else secondary. Nevertheless, secondary aspects should be gone over too, to ensure that nothing is left to chance in the handling of a case.

In an ideal world, our moral compass can function without unnecessary or hard-to-explain time delays or other external triggers. For instance, last year, something was amiss with Finance Minister Mart Võrklaev's (Reform) moral compass.

The "presidential scandal" he initiated happened to underscore a lengthy time lag between the irritating act and the indignation. It was speculated that the disclosure was fueled by other political motives (Oidsalu is referring to controversy over the funding of the Office of the President of the Republic of Estonia – ed.).

The syndrome of moral procrastination has also manifested during the dispute over the dispensation of justice, albeit now a subsiding controversy, both in the intervention of Kalle Laanet in criminal cases and in the apartment rental scandal.

With hindsight it would be relatively easy to determine that Laanet's "accommodation issue" was known to a very narrow circle, including some high-ranking officials and at least one member of the Reform Party (besides Laanet himself), dating back to the time he was the Minister of Defense (2021-2022 – ed.).

There is also no reason to believe that the details of this matter were unknown to the secretaries general at the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Justice, either. The secretary general (the non-political co-leader of a ministry – ed.) inevitably comes into contact a the minister's expense requests, often more intimately than many might desire. And yet, the public only got to hear about the iffy rental lease agreement now.

Unjustified procrastination in reporting violations is not the sole issue underpinning the charges of undue interference by the justice minister in the prosecution's work on criminal cases.

Prosecutor General Andres Parmas, and some of his colleagues, had revealed information about Kalle Laanet's alleged interventions in the various criminal case proceedings shortly before the prosecutors in question were facing the prospect of being placed under official supervision, and not when the alleged violations occurred.

Only on February 8 did Prosecutor General Parmas claim in an interview, given to Vilja Kiisler and Eesti Päevaleht, that Laanet's intervention lay within established norms, saying: "Politicians have never been satisfied with any of the prosecutors general in the past. There have always been complaints about them: The wrong matters are being prosecuted, the right matters are not being prosecuted quickly enough or well enough. My approach to such criticism is therefore stoical. /-/ There has always been that tension between the prosecution and the politicians."

When asked whether Minister Laanet had issued complaints, Prosecutor General Parmas said a month ago that this was "a natural part of the job."

Now, however, we have heard Parmas claiming that he has been subject to an unusual amount pressure for months, to the extent that he has even felt compelled to record conversations with the minister. He had been recording these them even at a time he was publicly claiming all was normal and in order.

Which prosecutor general was it who therefore has misled the public, the "winter one" or the spring one?" And why did the minister's criticism, which just a month ago was "a natural part of the job," suddenly become an "unusual pressure" which had been going on for months?

In addition to not misleading the public without a clear and pressing need, we expect from our public servants, and not least from our law enforcement system, that violations get reported properly, in a timely fashion.

Preventing undesirable developments is a core aspect of the criminal policy of any developed country. One would expect that alleged violations by the justice minister would be adequately recorded within the institution itself, at least to use them at a more appropriate time.

The prosecutor's office too has internal channels designated for use in cases of political pressure. Kairi Küngas, communications chief at the Prosecutor's Office, said that no prosecutor had however used these channels in respect of alleged political pressure by Justice Minister Laanet, nor has there been any recourse to the Riigikogu's Legal Affairs Committee.

Early notification of violations is required to deter further undesirable developments. Why, then, did prosecutors, who should be particularly good at assessing such risks, not do so?

If the justice minister illegally influenced criminal cases and engaged in corruption too, then that is a major problem. But if he did so while prosecutors and other officials were complicit and remained silent, the issue is an even more serious one.

The issue is not that explaining delays in reporting violations is harder later on. This is information which even law enforcement officials lack the moral right to keep in their back pocket.

--

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