The parliamentary commission exceeded its powers, Vytautas Bakas acted biased

However, after 5 members of the commission voted for the first option, 4 – for the second, it was decided that the temporary parliamentary commission committed procedural violations.

During the meeting, there was a discussion about the fact that D. Šakaliene’s husband may be working in the VSD, and as a result, her assessment may be biased. Conservative Sergejs Jovaiša raised a question about the workplace of the MP’s spouse.

However, D. Šakalienė herself rejected any accusations. She emphasized that the EPK’s conclusions do not evaluate the intelligence work or the content of the investigation of the temporary commission. According to the politician, she can participate in the vote due to procedural violations.

“My spouse did not hold any duties in the VSD during that period. In contrast, Vytautas Bakas was not only the chairman of the National Security and Defense Committee (NSGK) when the speaker approached him, but was also the chief of staff of candidate Skvernelis. This is his direct participation in the events. In my case, I was not directly involved. We do not delve into the content considered by the temporary commission, their correspondence to reality. We do not deal with anything related to VSD work. At that time, my spouse did not hold any position in the VSD”, said D. Šakalienė at the meeting.

For his part, S. Jovaiša objected to such arguments. Antanas Matulas also agreed with the opinion of a fellow party member. He urged D. Šakalieňa to abstain from voting.

However, after discussions and questions raised by the commission members, D. Šakalienė decided to abstain from voting.

“When it comes to double standards, demanding the identity of an intelligence officer is below par.” (…) Please allow me to withdraw and I will not take part in this vote,” she said.

The conclusion prepared by the EPC states that V. Bakas, the chairman of the temporary commission, was biased during the investigation. This was decided because when the story of the speaker began, Tomas Gailius first turned to the then chairman of NSGK – V. Bakas. The parliamentarian’s direct participation in the events and subsequent efforts to investigate them were recognized as biased.

However, according to A. Matulas, who objected to such arguments, V. Bak’s chairmanship of the commission was approved by the parliament.

“How can the commission say that Bakas is an interested person, if the parliament voted for him to be the chairman of the commission. I don’t see any personal interests at all. The case and the investigation are extraordinary. It is a shame that the opposition left,” said the politician.

The conservator also testified that the bias of the chairman of the commission is not revealed in any procedures and has not been proven, therefore it is not a matter of competence of the EPK.

The members of the commission had questions about why V. Bakas himself was participating in the remote meeting.

“You are trying to influence the work of the commission members. If the commission decides on another person, we stand aside, in this case the colleague participates and still tries to speak, thus influencing the decision”, A. Bagdon considered.

However, the chairman of the temporary commission himself was pleased to receive an e-mail inviting him to attend the meeting. However, at A. Norkienė’s request, V. Bakas disconnected from the meeting.

At Bene, the most debated topic was the disclosure of the speaker’s identity. As previously announced, T. Gailius, who testified at the meeting of the VSD reporter’s commission held in the fall of last year, refused the assurance of confidentiality offered to him.

According to EPK, only the General Prosecutor’s Office could decide on the disclosure of his identity. However, the members of the commission agreed that the law does not describe the case when the whistleblower wants to publicly waive confidentiality.

“I have examined the law consistently, in my opinion, that article cannot be applied when the reporter makes the disclosure himself. It is intended for institutions, not for the speaker himself. In order for the institutions to withdraw confidentiality, you must apply for them to withdraw. However, it is not provided that he can make it public and in this case that article is not applicable, because the law does not provide that he can make it public after receiving confidentiality. As far as I’m concerned, he hasn’t signed any non-disclosure agreement himself. There is a loophole in the law here and it allows the person to make it public whenever he wants,” said Artūras Žukauskas.

However, Rita Tamašūnienė, who opposed him, testified that the procedure was violated. D. Šakalienė also agreed with her colleague’s opinion.

“The only competent institution is the General Prosecutor’s Office to make such decisions,” the MP assured.

During the meeting, it was decided to start an investigation regarding the complaint received from the Presidency last week. According to A. Norkienė, it was signed by Jarek Niewierowiczius, the chief advisor to the president, requesting to investigate possibly false information in the materials of the VSD reporter’s commission.

An investigation has also been launched into an appeal from the member of the Seimas, Agnes Širinskienė. A member of the mixed group requests an assessment of possible violations of the Seimas statute, when the parliament did not appoint the rapporteur of the main committee to consider the conclusions of the commission’s investigation after the submission.

ELTA reminds that on Thursday, the Seimas, after the discussion, approved the conclusions of the temporary commission that investigated the story of the speaker of the VSD.

A week ago, the parliament approved the conclusions of the VSD reporter’s commission after submission, but soon some of the parliamentarians belonging to the opposition appealed to the Constitutional Court (KT), asking to find out whether the parliamentary investigation commission acted legally.

The conclusions contain suggestions related to the parliamentary inquiry carried out. The Seimas is urged to consider amendments to the Law on Intelligence Controllers, giving the ombudsman the rights and duty to supervise the legality of the activities of institutions performing criminal intelligence. It is also proposed to strengthen the parliamentary control of VSD and STT, to review the legal regulation of parliamentary control, so that the institutions are obliged to provide all necessary information to the Seimas. Among the recommendations are calls to ensure the role of the Seimas in appointing and dismissing VSD and STT heads and their deputies.

The head of the Parliament, Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen, says that despite the critical evaluation of the Seimas ethics watchdogs, the parliamentarians will vote at the adoption stage on the conclusion of the commission that examined the story of the State Security Department (VSD) whistleblower. In the opinion of the Speaker of the Seimas, some aspects of the Ethics and Procedures Commission’s conclusion do not correspond to reality.

“I would see no reason not to further consider the conclusion of the special commission, since it is about the content. I think that the Seimas, as planned, will go to the adoption stage. And the Ethics and Procedures Commission, in turn, evaluated the procedures,” V. Čmilytė-Nielsen told reporters in the Seimas on Tuesday.

However, the Speaker of the Seimas admits that she is skeptical about some details of the Ethics and Procedures Commission’s conclusion.

“There are several violations found by the Ethics and Procedures Commission (…), but some parts of the conclusion make us smile, such as the fact that the whistleblower’s identity was revealed. It seems to me that this also says something about the weight of this conclusion of the Ethics and Procedures Commission”, said V. Čmilytė-Nielsen.

“Everyone knows that columnist Marius Laurinavičius revealed this in the television studio at the beginning of March 2023. And now to state that the special investigation commission has revealed the identity of the whistleblower seems to me to be unsound,” she added.

The Head of the Parliament emphasizes that the members of the Seimas will evaluate these conclusions during the final vote in the Parliament.

“It is necessary to get acquainted with all conclusions and evaluate them. I think this will become an argument in the final decision. This is the significance of the conclusions of the Ethics and Procedures Commission. During the voting at the final stage, some may take them into account, and some may just have an argument to further support the conclusions of the special commission. We will see during the voting,” she said.

After the Ethics and Procedures Commission of the Seimas found that the commission that examined the story of the whistleblower of the State Security Department (VSD) violated several laws and procedures, President Gitanas Nausėda reiterated that the purpose of this parliamentary investigation was to discredit him as a candidate for the post of the country’s leader.

“The commission assumed the role of prosecutors, without having any constitutional and legal powers, was created incorrectly, used methods in its activities that are incompatible with the methods of a democratic society, and even raised doubts about the activities of various services that are very important for the security of Lithuania. Basically, there was only one goal – to try to discredit the candidate, who is not liked by some political forces,” G. Nausėda told reporters in Gargždaii on Tuesday.