On August 5, the General Prosecutor’s Office ordered the opening of a criminal case on the usurpation of state power that took place under the former Democratic Party government from June 7-14, 2019. “There are things that society expects and it’s necessary that these things happen” declared Interior Minister Andrei Năstase that same day.
“Next week, the interim Prosecutor General could come to Parliament to request the waiver of parliamentary immunity of some deputies,” he added. 
According to the Criminal Code, actions committed for the purpose of usurpation or forced maintenance of state power are punishable by 10 to 15 years in prison. So now that an active criminal case has been opened, what are it’s chances?

Ion Diacov, Ex-Prosecuto

It’s hard to say. It depends on what you want. Yes, the prosecutor can come to Parliament and demand the waiver of the immunity of certain deputies. It depends what charges are brought to them, what evidence they have in the decree initiating the criminal prosecution etc. One way to go is with proven charges, another way it can go is similar to the Filat case, using organized denunciations. The question is who are we going to judge? Plahotniuc is gone. What about former Prime Minister Filip? Yes, Filip dissolved the Parliament, but he did so based on the decisions of the Constitutional Court (CC). The court will also have arguments that it did not act by itself, that it received some instructions etc. One week after the decisions were taken, the CC cancelled its own decisions and the Filip Government withdrew from power. Why? Something amazing happened. So it’s hard to say what’s next. The case is not simple. The case is not for a month or two. Tomorrow or the day after tomorrow we could wake up to the fact that the current governing coalition is over and then, what will happen to the case? That is also a question.

Ion Dron, Justice and Law Association

Keeping in mind that today the agenda of the Prosecutor’s Office is set not by prosecutors but by politicians, this case has every chance to get to court. In other conditions, the question remains open, as assessed in the text of the law, from the factual circumstances. However I repeat with regret that what the governing political leaders are telling us today, the prosecutors have to do tomorrow…We are risking a new dictatorship. We got rid of the dictatorship of one clan, which has lost power, to change it for the dictatorship of another clan, which came to power. And the Prosecutor’s office, as a state institution, is used as a political tool in the battle of attrition between these two clans, disregarding the interest of the people. This case was started for the sake of their public image, as a circus … We have little food to put on the table, but we must be provided with a circus in everyday.

Ecaterina Mardarovici, Political Club 50X50

This may be considered usurpation for states that live by different laws, but for us … We can say that, de facto, we had usurpation and de jure we did not have it, because in the Republic of Moldova we have no lawful people in power and no law-abiding institutions. From my point of view, there was a decision of the Constitutional Court – good or bad as it was and we have to base our judgements on it, when it comes to usurpation …What happened in the week from 7 to 14 June will remain as it is now – unknown, just as what it happened with the events on April 7. It was a fierce competition between Dodon and Plahotniuc. The first had [Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry] Kozak and Russia behind him, and the second – the devil and people without character. We see the results of this competition – this ostrich-camel with whom it is unclear where we will end up. The Democratic Party correctly proceeded to withdraw from governance, otherwise we would have reached violence, great violence.

Alexandru Arseni, University Professor, PhD

I believe that there is sufficient evidence for the case to reach the court, otherwise the Prosecutor’s Office would not have ordered the initiation of this criminal case. Now comes the second stage – the waiver of parliamentary immunity from those who have been, directly or indirectly, involved in committing this crime against the state. We are about to see the evidence that the prosecution is invoking, in addition to what we know and I am sure that the case will go to court. The events of the week of June 7-14 bring together elements of the usurpation of state power by the Democratic Party. We remember the week in which the activity of state institutions was blocked. It was clearly an act of usurpation, with the involvement of the Constitutional Court, which tried to give legitimacy to this act. I repeat: all the components of an act of usurping state power both by those who acted, and by those who tried to justify this action, were present.