By: Anamarija Novak
The parliamentary inquiry commission, which is supposed to investigate the alleged illegal financing of political parties and propaganda in the media, has under the leadership of Tamara Vonta from the Gibanje Svoboda party turned into a tool of brutal political retaliation.
After it became clear that a criminal complaint had been filed with the Ljubljana District State Prosecutor’s Office against the MP of the ruling party and chair of the parliamentary inquiry commission, Tamara Vonta, we can now reveal in more detail the contents of this document, which exposes one of the most serious cases of abuse of state institutions in independent Slovenia. The complaint, filed by Boris Tomašič on behalf of the company Nova hiša d.o.o., within which Nova24TV also operates, substantiates suspicion of two criminal offences: abuse of official position or official rights under the first paragraph of Article 257 of the Criminal Code, and disclosure and unlawful acquisition of a business secret under the first paragraph of Article 236 of the same code.
Grounded suspicion of a criminal offence
The document shows that there are well‑founded reasons to suspect that Tamara Vonta, as a public official – a member of parliament and chair of the parliamentary inquiry commission – abused her position and seriously exceeded the limits of the powers granted to the chair of such a commission. At the centre of the complaint is the fact that the data Vonta used and disclosed at the session on 11 December 2024 had already been unlawfully obtained at the outset. These data originate from a request sent on 4 October 2023 to the Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia by the then chair of the commission, Mojca Šetinc Pašek. The request was not limited to the time period defined by the act ordering the parliamentary inquiry but was completely unlimited in time. Such an intrusion into tax secrecy and the business secrets of a private entity without an appropriate legal basis is, according to the complaint, unlawful. A parliamentary inquiry commission does not have the right to unlimited access to confidential data outside the precisely defined subject and period of the inquiry. This is explicitly emphasised in the complaint – without such conduct, the commission would not have been entitled to access these protected data, as no legal basis existed for such an intrusion. Nevertheless, Tamara Vonta unlawfully used these data and publicly disclosed them during the questioning of Boris Tomašič, even though, as chair of the commission, she knew that the data had not been obtained in accordance with the law and that the commission had no legal basis for them. During the hearing, she asked questions that had no connection whatsoever with the legally defined subject of the inquiry – the illegal financing of political parties and propaganda in the media. Instead, the questions related exclusively to the notifier’s business relationships, commercial contracts, and financial transactions with private third parties. Among them were questions such as whether Tomašič knew the name Belfry, why certain companies would advertise with him, whether Ripost advertised with them, why Nova hiša received 24,300 euros from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food, and whether he was familiar with the company Triforce Ventures or Benchers and in what form cooperation with this company took place. In several instances, Tomašič explicitly pointed out that these were the notifier’s business secrets, that such questioning constituted an abuse of the chair’s position, and that he would therefore not answer. Vonta nevertheless persisted, continued asking questions related to business secrets, and kept disclosing them publicly.
A tool for political retaliation
The complaint emphasises that by doing so, Vonta unlawfully used the notifier’s business secrets and tax‑financial data, abusing her official position as chair of the inquiry commission, all with the intention of retaliating against political opponents, unjustifiably disclosing information to the public, and thereby causing the notifier harm in the form of damage to his reputation, business interests, and good name. Given her role as chair of the commission, Vonta was certainly aware that her conduct was contrary to the law, prohibited, and criminal. The document concludes that she acted with direct intent – she was aware of her actions and intended to carry them out. What is particularly concerning is that the complaint does not describe an isolated incident but rather a continuous and systematic abuse of the parliamentary inquiry mechanism. Former chair Mojca Šetinc Pašek had already publicly and unequivocally warned of serious irregularities in the commission’s work, especially regarding the unlawful handling of confidential documents and the exceeding of its powers. She warned that the parliamentary inquiry commission was being used contrary to its legal purpose – as a tool for political retaliation against political opponents instead of for determining and assessing the actual state of affairs. “I can say, because I chaired it myself, that it was intended in some way to settle accounts with a political opponent – the SDS party … In any case, parliamentary inquiry commissions are of course primarily intended for a kind of political show … This is simply part of this, I would say, kind of political arena, a political circus,” Šetinc Pašek publicly admitted.
Public discrediting of Tomašič
The notifier had already pointed out the same irregularities in a previously filed criminal complaint against Šetinc Pašek. This clearly shows that these were not accidental or isolated actions but a pattern that continued even after the change of the commission’s chair. Under Article 15 of the Parliamentary Inquiry Act, the chair of the commission is obliged to protect the confidentiality of the data obtained in the course of performing her duties. Business secrets may be disclosed only with the authorisation of the affected party, and the accused had no such authorisation. According to Article 1 of the Act, the task of a parliamentary inquiry commission is to determine and assess the actual state of affairs, which may serve as a basis for the National Assembly to decide on the political responsibility of public office holders, to amend legislation, or to make other decisions within its constitutional competence – but certainly not to conduct an unlimited investigation of private entities or publicly disclose their business secrets. According to the complaint, Vonta’s conduct during the hearing clearly showed that her goal was not to establish facts but to publicly discredit the witness and retaliate against the notifier and political opponents. Among other things, she used words full of rhetorical irony and value‑laden insinuations: “Yes, you just go ahead and tell us, because I see that you are truly an expert in all fields, and I will gladly listen to everything, law, economics, shareholder matters, writing, rhetoric and so on. I must admit, I really must admit, I have never seen a witness like you. And I am grateful that you came and opened our eyes. We have seen the light like Esmeralda.” The complaint assesses this as an obvious and deliberate overstepping of official powers and an abuse of position, using the coercive authority of the chair to achieve personal and political discreditation.
This criminal complaint is not merely a legal dispute between a media company and an MP – it is also evidence that the ruling coalition is prepared to turn the institution of parliamentary inquiry into a weapon for systematically targeting the opposition, critical media, and individuals who dare to expose its methods. If such abuses are not stopped, then parliamentary inquiries can no longer be called a democratic institution. They become a tool of political pressure and retaliation. The truth will eventually come to light – in court. And history will record who defended the rule of law and who tried to destroy it.