Tribune. The week that has just passed from July 12 to 17 has seen several episodes of a soap opera whose bad script is in one sentence: “ If justice is investigating a politician, a minister, an elected official, it is obviously because it has its own political agenda. “ Episodes on which we have chosen not to communicate day to day, to try – but is it still possible? – to let justice take its course without fueling controversy.
This distressing spectacle deserves, however, that we come back to it, because it is not a question here of worn-out defense arguments of some politician who has become justiciable, but of a whole state apparatus which is set in motion to discredit justice, with the consistent support of those who have been engaged in this task for years.
The commotion began with the coup attempt of deputies Naïma Moutchou (LRM) followed by Antoine Savignat (LR), announcing their resignation from the Court of Justice of the Republic (CJR). This decision does not engage them very little: the complaints against Eric Dupond-Moretti are currently investigated by the investigating committee of the CJR and the resigners had no prerogative at this stage of the procedure. This is therefore a pure communication operation.
No magistrate requested the resignation of the minister
The two deputies staged this resignation with fictitious consequences to say the least to denounce the fact that justice, by investigating this complaint, would use its prerogatives to “make its law” that is to say choose its minister. In this denunciation, it is not clear who is targeted: the plaintiffs, namely an association for the fight against corruption and magistrates’ unions? The magistrates of the Court of Cassation, the Council of State and the Court of Auditors making up the complaints commission, who considered that the complaints should be deemed admissible and be investigated? The magistrates of the investigating committee, who lead the investigation?
This vagueness is maintained on purpose: only the investigating committee is currently conducting the investigation, and there is no reason to question its impartiality. Who can seriously believe that the decision to indict a minister in office could result from an instrumentalisation of justice by “a handful of magistrates”? Let us recall in passing that no union of magistrates nor any magistrate has ever asked for the resignation of the minister. At no moment.
You have 71.35% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.