NSGK is inclined to investigate the speaker’s history in a parliamentary commission

“The General Prosecutor’s Office stated that at that time – in 2020 spring – the parliamentary control carried out by NSGK does not answer all questions. The reporter was not properly interviewed, and other persons named in the information provided by the reporter were not interviewed. Therefore, answers to the questions are necessary – the questions remain”, L. Kasčiūnas told journalists on Wednesday in the Seimas after a meeting with representatives of the General Prosecutor’s Office.

“We have to decide how to do it. Since this is part of a wider picture, let’s keep in mind the speaker’s history, we have various questions related to the financing of the election campaign, with various interest groups – I think it is appropriate to go this way: I know that an initiative is being developed (…) specifically for the Seimas investigation commission” , he said, referring to the initiative of Vytautas Bakos, a member of the Democratic Union “Vardan Lietuvos” working in the opposition, to convene a parliamentary investigation commission.

L. Kasčiūnas indicated that he would support such an initiative by V. Bakos. However, the Chairman of NSGK noticed that the questions of the speaker’s history affect not only VSD, but also 2019. financing of the presidential election campaign, possible relations with interest groups. Therefore, he continued, questions regarding the actions of the VSD could be investigated by the Intelligence Controllers – thus without politicizing either the investigation issue or the ombudsman institutions themselves.

“Since the picture of the investigation is broad, it is necessary to assess (…) what the role of the Intelligence Controller could be here. The intelligence controller is an independent institution that decides to investigate or not to investigate,” explained the NSGK chairman.

“If a special commission is created, it is very likely and, from my point of view, it would be very healthy and useful for the comptroller to sit down with that commission (…) and cooperate,” he reflected.

“A possible option is for the ombudsman to help the commission investigate that part of the VSD as well – by conducting surveys, etc. Without politicizing the institution”, emphasized the member of the Seimas.

However, previously the controller of Eltai Intelligence Nortautas Statkus indicated that the institution will not investigate the history of the informant, because, according to him, it is 2020. March was made by the competent authority – NSGK. The investigation would be started only if new factual circumstances appeared, he said.

When asked about what decisions would be taken if the Intelligence Controller decides not to examine the issue and there is no interaction between the commission and the ombudsman, L. Kasčiūnas said that in such a case, the commission itself would take up the issue of VSD activities.

“I would think that the hanging questions prevent them from being ignored.” Naturally, if such interaction does not occur or will not exist, the commission will also have to enter that space, whether it is wanted or not,” emphasized L. Kasčiūnas.

“Cooperation between the special commission and the intelligence comptroller, I think, would be the best solution to answer the unanswered questions,” he added.

However, he noted, the General Prosecutor’s Office will still provide systematic information on what issues after 2020. the law enforcement investigation and NSGK parliamentary control remained unanswered. According to L. Kasčiūnas, these are new factual circumstances due to which the controller’s role in the investigation could be more active.

“The prosecutor’s office will still provide a written, structured picture of what is missing. In our opinion, this is a new circumstance for the controller to be at least more involved in the inspection process”, added L. Kasčiūnas.

At that time, Saulius Skvernelis, a member of the NSGK and the chairman of the “Vardan Lietuvos” Democratic Union, assessed the situation somewhat differently – in his opinion, the activities of the VSD should be investigated exclusively by the Intelligence Controller. At that time, other circumstances of the reporter’s history could come under the scrutiny of the parliamentary commission of inquiry.

“In my opinion, (the process – ELTA) should be completed by the Controller of Intelligence, because those questions that are related to the internal activities of the VSD are appropriate for this institution. It would not be a political process, it would be objective and impartial”, explained S. Skvernelis after the committee meeting.

“As far as the VSD part is concerned, I think not,” he explained, when asked whether the parliamentary commission of inquiry should delve into the doubts raised about the legality of the VSD’s activities.

Intelligence Controller: It doesn’t make sense for me to take what the competent authority has investigated
N. Statkus, the head of the Office of Intelligence Controllers, who attended part of the meeting at that time, said that he would make decisions on a possible investigation into the activities of the VSD after the Seimas decides on the creation of a parliamentary commission of inquiry. For the time being, he does not intend to clarify the circumstances of the speaker’s story on his own initiative – N. Statkus repeated the position expressed earlier to Elta, that NSGK has examined this issue.

“Currently, I do not intend to (undertake an investigation – ELTA), because in 2020 March 30 a decision was made on the speaker’s story. NSGK is competent to investigate the activities of intelligence institutions”, N. Statkus told reporters in the Seimas.

“Now, it does not make sense for me to take on what the competent authority has investigated. Unless there are new factual circumstances,” he repeated.

Therefore, when asked about the possible cooperation with NSGK – as seen by the chairman of the committee L. Kasčiūnas – N. Statkus said that according to the law, if he receives an invitation from the commission to submit an assessment, he will have to do so.

“As a public official, I will have to participate and come to any commission that invites,” he explained and emphasized that the Intelligence Comptroller’s Office is an independent institution, so it is impossible to be an official member of the parliamentary investigation commission.

N. Statkus could not evaluate the information provided by the General Prosecutor’s Office to the NSGK either – the controller attended only part of the meeting and in turn presented it to the committee members, as VSD responded in 2020. recommendations submitted to the department. However, he said, if there are new factual circumstances in the prosecution’s materials, he would consider opening an investigation into the story of the informant.

ELTA reminds that the debate on the possible investigation in the parliament arose after the appearance of journalists Dovydas Pancerov and Birutė Davidonytė for the book “The Speaker and the President”, which reveals the possibly illegal collection of data on private individuals by the VSD during the presidential election campaign. A lot of attention is also paid to the election campaign and the presidential period of Gitanas Nausėda, the then candidate for the post of the country’s leader.

However, despite the attention to history and the questions prepared by the ruling parties to both the VSD and the president and the Central Election Commission (CEC), the parliamentary investigation has not been launched so far.

At the beginning of the summer, NSGK and the General Prosecutor’s Office exchanged the materials of the conducted investigations and evaluations in order to assess whether the parliamentary investigation could answer the remaining doubts. Then NSGK chairman L. Kasčiūnas said that he believed that it was “only a matter of time” when the committee headed by him would be granted the statute of a special investigation commission.

In addition, this week V. Bakas confirmed that he had prepared a draft resolution on the establishment of a temporary commission of inquiry. However, so far there is a lack of support for this in the parliament.

The VSD management strictly rejects the public accusations that the intelligence gathered information illegally. Head of department Darius Jauniškis insists that intelligence officials have been interested in the backgrounds of all presidential candidates in the pre-election period, which he says is standard practice.