By: Gašper Blažič
After a night’s sleep, it may also be time for the first conclusions and insights about the scandalous court case, which is not yet over, as the higher court will decide on the continuation of the proceedings due to the prosecutor’s appeal. This means it can either uphold the district court’s verdict or return the case for a retrial. If similar reasoning prevails as in the first instance ruling and there are no surprises, the process will end with the confirmation of the verdict we heard yesterday.
This court decision is far more important than it might seem at first glance. It is entirely possible that the powers behind the scenes judged that it was not worth entering into a total confrontation with a significant portion of the Slovenian public at this moment, and that the situation could be “lulled” with the first-instance judgment, only to later surprise with a completely different decision from the higher court. As one insider told the author of these lines, who has followed all the main hearings in court over the past year, the court’s agreement with the content of the indictment would in fact have amounted to the beginning of a new civil war. Although the ruling side repeatedly expresses outrage at the supposed disrespect for the rule of law by protesters – arguing that protest rallies in front of courthouses would not be allowed in any orderly state – many will tell you that in the U.S., for example, where judges take their independence from the legislative and executive branches very seriously, protesting outside a court is a completely normal occurrence.
There is no doubt that the main target of this trial was Janez Janša, leader of the largest opposition party. Even though he was not formally the primary accused, he was allegedly suspected of “aiding in the commission of a criminal act.” The Trenta case formally began in 2013, when then-head of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (CPC), Goran Klemenčič, following his now-infamous – and later annulled – report, incriminated Janša, who was then serving his second term as prime minister, over assets of “unexplained origin.” He filed a report with the newly established National Bureau of Investigation (NPU), which began investigating Janša’s 2005 apartment purchase – specifically, the exchange of a smaller apartment for a larger one. Already in this initial phase of the investigation, from around 2014 onwards (at the time Janša was unconstitutionally imprisoned in the Patria case!), many people were questioned, many of whom had to testify again in court ten years later. The Specialised State Prosecutor’s Office – an authority that deals with the most serious forms of organised crime (!) – judged that the case was strong enough to bring three suspects, including Janša, to trial. The district court in Celje then processed the case.
The experience from the Patria case showed that in our country, the issue of judicial abuse is not sufficiently highlighted in public discourse to mobilise a significant critical mass of people even during the most high-profile trials. At that time, a relatively small number of people from Committee 2014, SDS, and some other civil society organisations fought against the media-public mainstream like David against Goliath. The behind-the-scenes power brokers knew well that Janša’s imprisonment would affect public opinion and shift a significant portion of centrist voters away from SDS toward the then-newly formed Miro Cerar Party. And that is exactly what happened. Now there was a similar danger – that court decisions could again be used to steer public opinion at a time when Prime Minister Robert Golob is struggling to explain his own alleged acts of corruption (the Subotić affair being current), and when speculation is rife about who might be promoted as the next “new face.” The trial itself was very burdensome for all three accused and for Slovenian politics, as it leveraged previous cases and the impression of multiplying legal issues to create the idea that Janša is constantly running afoul of the law (and who would vote for such a politician?). If there had been a conviction yesterday, it would have greatly escalated already tense political conditions. But for the court, as presiding judge Cvetka Posilovič pointed out yesterday, only clear evidence and facts matter – not insinuations or hearsay.
Yesterday’s court decision thus at least somewhat curbed the gross misuse of the judiciary for political score-settling – a worrying trend lately, even elsewhere in Europe.
The indictment was, substantively and formally, pure nonsense – especially after many expert witnesses in court convincingly refuted the claims in the indictment. Summaries of these testimonies – we note that recording in courtrooms is prohibited, except for what the court records itself – were continuously reported on the Demokracija website and in its print edition, to keep the public informed and aware of what was really happening. Let us recall that we did the same in the case of Dr Milko Novič, who was deprived of years of his life in custody by the behind-the-scenes orchestrators of that trial. What happened to him was similar to what occurred during the previous regime to the now-deceased Martin Uhernik, who was also sentenced by a democratic Slovenian court for a murder he did not commit – but who eventually proved his innocence. Yet, no one could give him back the lost years or compensate him for his suffering.
All this demonstrates how important it is – especially in questionable trials – that the public has the “right to know more.” And perhaps the Trenta case would have ended differently had it been ignored by the media. Over the course of nearly a year, the number of journalists attending court sessions varied greatly. Only an STA journalist was consistently present; sometimes, the only reporter was from Demokracija. Mainstream media mostly repeated claims from the indictment, thereby spreading some false information. Apart from Demokracija, Nova24TV, and perhaps a few independent portals, practically no one questioned the indictment. It is hard to say whether Dr Milko Novič would have been saved from wrongful conviction if public and press attention – particularly from our weekly and journalist Petra Janša – had not followed the trial for the murder of Dr Janko Jamnik. Sadly, the aftermath of that story was tragic for the judge who acquitted Novič. Zvjezdan Radonjić was brought to the Celje court last year – in handcuffs. As the line from the Passion of John’s Gospel goes: “If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar!” (John 19:12)
During this entire time, I also had the opportunity to observe the hallway, where the prosecutor duo (Boštjan Valenčič and Luka Moljk) were constantly surrounded by “good company,” mainly journalists. I spoke with Valenčič only once – after I published an online comparison to the Bužekijan case, where the SDT dropped charges against Miro Senica (HERE). Prosecutor Valenčič personally approached me in the hallway to inform me (as also later written in the SDT’s official response to the article) that charges against Senica had not been dropped and that developments could be expected soon. Whether anything actually moved forward, I have no information. The media have noticed nothing.
Now, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and no longer with the accused, who will remain in uncertainty until the judgment becomes final. The greatest relief, however, is that the public can now be reassured that the principle of “the judge is also the accuser” has no place in a proper judiciary. If evidence alone were the only thing that mattered in the entire Slovenian judicial system, the judicial disgrace in the Patria case could never have happened. And Baron Charles Montesquieu, the ideological father of the separation of powers, would not be spinning in his grave like a top.
But the fight for normalcy continues – because it must. And that is why we will keep watching and informing you.
