Reaction of the Association of Judges of Moldova to President Sandu’s statements to ZdG
The Association of Judges of the Republic of Moldova (AJM) published on Thursday, August 10, a press release in which it notes “with regret” that lately, with a deviation from the provisions of Article 120 of the Constitution, the political sphere is questioning the legality and grounds of some irrevocable decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice. The reaction comes a few hours after ZdG published an interview with President Maia Sandu on justice reform, but the names of the head of state or other politicians are not mentioned in the release.
The organisation notes that the fundamental principle of democracy stresses the importance of the separation of powers in the state. Each of them – legislative, executive and judicial – must exercise its role autonomously, without interference, respecting the constitutional provisions and the democratic principles that underpin Moldova.
“We note with regret generalizing and defamatory statements against judges. These, in addition to being a direct attack on the fundamental principles of the rule of law and the independence of justice, also undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. It is vital that representatives of the executive and legislative branches recognise and respect the independence of the judiciary, bearing in mind that their role is to adopt and implement laws, but not to influence or criticise judicial decisions. At this juncture, we appeal to the responsibility and maturity of leaders in their public communications.
Transparency and dialogue are essential for the proper functioning of any democracy. Instead of one-sided statements and accusations, we are moving towards a constructive dialogue. We firmly believe that justice reform efforts must be based on transparent and inclusive discussions involving all stakeholders.
Therefore, we ask all political actors to take responsibility for their statements and actions, realizing that public statements deeply influence public opinion and can have lasting repercussions,” according to AJM.
At the same time, the Association notes that under Article 120 of the Constitution, irrevocable judicial acts are binding on all subjects of law, regardless of the form of organization, and the formulation of subjective positions of a political nature, criticizing the acts issued by the Supreme Court of Justice, “is nothing but the denial of the presumption of legality of the act of justice”.
“We see yet another attempt by the system to put the brakes on justice reform and efforts to remove corrupt people from the system. These decisions confirm once again that the system does not want to cleanse itself from within and that our approach of external evaluation is correct,” says President Maia Sandu, referring to the 21 decisions of the Pre-Vetting Commission recently annulled by Supreme Court judges.
The President of the AJM is Victor Sandu, one of the candidates who failed the financial and ethical integrity assessment and the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) decided to have him re-evaluated by the Pre-Vetting Commission.
