At the start of today’s hearing in Special Court on ministerial responsibility being tried for television licenses in 2016 o Nikos Pappas and entrepreneur Christos Kalogritsasthe former minister of SYRIZA issued a statement characterizing the case as “political”.

In particular, Mr. Pappas, who is on trial for dereliction of duty, among other things, states in his statement that “my position on this case is clear from the very beginning. this business policy and I’m doing it politically.” “As soon as it was born, it became obvious that this case was and remains an attempt by my political opponents to harm me personally, as well as the party to which I belong. This position of mine was resolutely confirmed,” he said, adding:

“My political opponents even accused me of bribery in a tender I secured to bring hundreds of millions of euros to the Greek state when previous governments received no amount for the public good. And for the first time in parliamentary history, my political persecutors were forced to withdraw this dishonorable accusation, which they themselves fabricated.

“Ladies and gentlemen judges,

The procedure in front of you is completed in a short time and with many paradoxes.

For the first time in the history of the Greek Parliament, a Special Court, composed of 21 high-ranking judicial and prosecutorial officials, was set up to try an offense.

For the first time, the Special Court is assessing the actions of the minister, which not only did not cause financial damage to the Greek state, but also brought hundreds of millions of euros to it much more.

For the first time, the defendant is the one whose actions have made a decisive contribution to the collection of hundreds of millions of euros by the Greek state, and not those who in previous years were not active in collecting them.

For the first time, the defendant is the one whose actions decisively contributed to the implementation of the Constitution and the law, and not those who in previous years did nothing to implement it.

In other words, this is the first time that the Special Court has been called upon to decide whether the collection of hundreds of millions of euros for the Greek state and the application of legality was carried out in an illegal manner.

However, the paradoxes and contradictions do not end there.

Firstly. This case began with a lawsuit by my co-defendant, who maintains his innocence, but at the same time the “truthfulness” of his statements, which made him a defendant.

Secondly. My co-defendant’s lawyer, who by his position should defend the innocence of his client, is a member of parliament. However, at the same time, the same MP voted in the Greek Parliament to prosecute me and, as a result, his client. My prosecutor is fighting for the innocence of my co-defendant. To be and remain my political opponent.

And thirdly, my original plaintiff and co-defendant in your court allege that he was wronged, while at the same time our political opponents and my persecutors and the prosecution against me allege that he was benevolent. It goes without saying that both cannot be true.

The process before you was short. Most of the witnesses finished their testimony in a very short time.

Under the burden of testifying under oath before your court, others have softened their testimony or even reversed what they have written and said in public.

Still others testified that they could not prove my own unlawful involvement, or even more testified that they knew nothing of my own interference on behalf of my co-defendant.

Ladies and gentlemen judges,

I consider it my duty to state my assessment to you. My position on this case is clear from the outset. This is a political matter, and I am doing it politically.

As soon as it was born, it became obvious that this case was and remains an attempt by my political opponents to harm me personally, as well as the party to which I belong. This position of mine was resolutely confirmed.

My political opponents have even accused me of taking bribes in a tender that brought me hundreds of millions of euros to the Greek state, while previous governments received no amount for the public good. And for the first time in the history of parliamentarism, my political persecutors were forced to withdraw the aforementioned dishonest accusation, which they themselves fabricated.

Already at the stage of the Investigative Committee of the Parliament, my political opponents tried to use the testimony of witnesses, using their excerpts and distorting their content, in order to slander me with the help of a few friendly media and serve their petty political pursuits.

Witnesses to this effort, ladies and gentlemen of the judges, you were a group, and so are you. Throughout the process before your court, you saw the distortions that took place in a significant part of the media, of what was done and said before you, and the readiness of my political opponents and persecutors for this. Even before the interrogation of the witnesses was completed, as if they had been prepared for a long time, they gave evidence, even through a representative of the government, containing distorted testimony, as well as armed late testimony of others and/or the same witnesses.

Unfortunately, “Justice” was instrumentalized by my political opponents already at the stage of the Investigative Committee, and its instrumentalization continued and continues to grow in the current process. Now it is self-evident that their persecution served and serves their micropolitical tricks, creating political confrontation and disorientation of public opinion from the prevailing real political and legal scandals and creating false political compensations for them, and even in the pre-election period.

I refused to participate in this instrumentalization of Justice from the very beginning. My presence before the Special Court was a political dream and the main aspiration of my political persecutors. Because my presence before you would legitimize their petty political efforts. Thus, ladies and gentlemen, my non-physical presence in front of you, although it is my right, does not constitute or result from disrespect, much less contempt for you. On the contrary, this is proof of my respect, first of all, for you and for the institution of justice itself. Perhaps with my physical presence, some would have received a few more minutes of publicity. However, this would not serve the truth and the smooth conduct of the trial.

Considering all of the above, you are invited to decide. Indeed, in the light of the aforementioned provocative attempt to politically instrumentalize the present trial. However, I am absolutely sure that in a purely political process you will decide purely legally. I am absolutely sure that just as my political opponents legalized political life, you legalize political life.

You are being asked to rule on a case in which the government first raised the money it should have been raising since 1989. He did not spend money, as was the case with NOVARTIS and SIEMENS. No unspecified amounts were found on me, my name was not lost during the transfer.

Ladies and gentlemen judges,

I have done my duty. I defended the public interest. In the case in which you judge, the state suffered any damage, but no damage. The Government, of which I had the honor to be a member, waged a titanic struggle to uphold the Constitution. A battle that hasn’t been seen since 1989.”

RES – OIE