Skip to main content

Global Corruption Report 2005: Corruption in construction and post-conflict reconstruction

Page 186

society, unanimously voted for a 33-year-old security police officer, Juta Strı-k¸e. However, opposition groups within parliament, widely believed to be associated with the Greens and Farmers Union, twice blocked Strı- k¸e’s appointment. 7 Repše responded by using his powers under the Civil Service Act to appoint Strı-k¸e as the deputy head of the bureau and then to appoint her as acting head of the bureau. Despite heavy criticism for this action from coalition partners, opposition parties and civil society organisations, Strı-k¸e continued working for 10 months without the approval of parliament and gathered widespread popular support. Following the change in administration in early 2004, and in just his second week as prime minister, Indulis Emsis (Greens and Farmers Union) unilaterally announced a new candidate as head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, despite Strı-k¸e’s popularity and his own verbal support for her. However, the candidate refused to run after receiving heavy criticism from the media and civil society. Only after this did the prime minister open another public competition for the post. A similar selection commission to the previous one voted in favour of Strı-k¸e by

three out of six votes. The prime minister, however, refused to put forward her name alone to the cabinet of ministers, and instead nominated three candidates. During the open cabinet meeting, but without proper explanation, ministers voted unanimously for Aleksejs Loskutovs. When Aleksejs Loskutovs’ appointment was confirmed by parliament for a term of five years in May 2004, the reaction from anti-corruption experts was generally positive. Widely considered to be of the ‘new generation’, he was a lecturer in criminology and criminal law. Loskutovs told the media: ‘I do not owe anything to politicians for this vote’,8 and promised to run the bureau in an independent and professional manner. However, the independence of the bureau has yet to be proved. Sections of the media have suggested that the cabinet selected Loskutovs because he was opposed to Strı-k¸e, a useful thing for the cabinet’s own political interests.9 Indeed, one of Loskutovs’ first steps in the job has been to launch an internal investigation into the work of Strı-k¸e. A high level of media and civil society attention may prevent Loskutovs from firing Strı-k¸e this time, but it is alleged that political players behind the scenes are hoping that he will.10 Inese Voika (TI Latvia)

Further reading GRECO, Evaluation Report on Latvia (Council of Europe, 2004), www.greco.coe.int Valts Kalnins and Lolita Cigane, On the Road Toward a More Honest Society: The Latest Trends in Anti-Corruption Policy in Latvia (Riga: Latvian Institute of International Affairs, 2003), www.policy.lv TI Latvia: www.delna.lv Notes 1. Public Survey Opinion, SKDS company, February 2003. 2. Analysis of Campaign Finance of the 2002 Parliamentary Elections (TI Latvia, Delna and the Soros Foundation, 2003). 3. Presentation by the bureau head, Juta Strı-k¸e, at the round table ‘Party Financing – What are We Going to Change?’ (2003), www.politika.lv/index.php?id=107578&lang=lv 4. Diena (Latvia), 2 February 2004.

Country reports LATVIA

GC2005 02 chap06 175

175

13/1/05 4:34:18 pm


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Global Corruption Report 2005: Corruption in construction and post-conflict reconstruction by Transparency International - Issuu