The General Prosecutor’s Office is dealing with the order to stop letters for individual MPs in case they have offensive or abusive content. It is currently reviewing the documents submitted by the Parliament’s Office, spokesperson for the Special Prosecutor’s office Jana Tökölyová confirmed to the Sme daily.
The order was issued by head of the office Daniel Guspan. His chief, Speaker of Parliament Andrej Danko, has admitted its wording was not good, but he still supports Guspan, saying he did not do so deliberately.
“If I revealed anybody’s intention to interfere with the secrecy of correspondence or other communication, I would act,” Danko said, as quoted by Sme. “But to punish somebody it is necessary that the criminal authorities act.”
Danko does not plan to step down from his post due to the case.
The scandal made it to the media in late April, after Igor Matovič of Ordinary People and Independent Personalities (OĽaNO-NOVA) reported the practice. According to him, employees of the parliament’s filing office were ordered to stop letters with abusive content and shred it after three months.
Speaker of Parliament denies letter opening accusations Read more The Parliament’s Office says that before shredding the letters it always turned to the deputy caucus, asking for its permission. This rule, however, was not mentioned in the respective order.
Moreover, the employees had to open the letters that were sent to individual MPs anonymously or by individual senders.
After public criticism, the Parliament’s Office did not change the rules, but enabled MPs to be present when opening the letters, Sme wrote.
In addition, if MPs disagree with the new rules, the Parliament’s Office can give them their own post office box at the post office, but it will not be responsible for the mail’s security check.
By changing the rules, the Parliament’s Office in fact admitted it had made a mistake, according to the opposition party Freedom and Solidarity (SaS). Guspan is not competent for his post and should leave, SaS representatives added, as quoted by Sme.
Guspan himself has not answered Sme’s questions. His spokesperson only referred to the previous statement, according to which the whole case is closed as Guspan had contacted the General Prosecutor’s Office and had explained the whole matter, Sme wrote.
