Corona investigation committee fails to get off the ground

It is still uncertain when the Corona investigation committee in the Hessian state parliament will start its work. “I am not making any predictions on that,” says chairman Yanki Pürsün (FDP). He is not even sure whether the MPs will even deal with the question of how Hessian politics dealt with the pandemic.

The committee’s establishment by parliament ten weeks ago was already overshadowed by a conflict. Three lawyers commissioned by the state parliament questioned the admissibility of the AfD’s application because the subject of the investigation was not defined precisely enough. In addition, the list of questions exceeded the state’s authority in the numerous questions that concern the federal government. Finally, blame was assigned and supposed results were anticipated. The law prohibits the state parliament from setting up an unconstitutional investigation, declared the CDU, SPD, Greens and FDP.

They adopted the report submitted by Hamburg lawyer Max Schwerdtfeger and deleted the 36 of the 44 questions submitted by the AfD that the expert had deemed inadmissible. From the remaining seven questions, they put together a new motion for establishment, which they passed with a large majority in the plenary session in the second week of July.

Complaint still “in preparation”

At the body’s inaugural meeting, Pürsün was elected chairman. The AfD announced that it would “exhaust all possible legal remedies.” According to a spokesman, the group has actually decided to take the case to the State Court, but the lawsuit is still “in preparation.”

In any case, she will object to the fact that the AfD’s list of questions has been drastically reduced. The question of how many MPs the parliamentary group can send to the investigative committee could also become a topic of legal dispute. In the past, it was common for such committees to interrupt their work “out of respect for the judiciary” as soon as a parliamentary group went to the State Court, Pürsün explains. However, there is no need to decide on this at the moment because no lawsuit has been filed yet.

The fact that the committee has not yet started its work is due to a difference of opinion regarding the submission of the motions for evidence. The quorum of one fifth of all state parliament members required to set up the investigative committee is 27. The AfD faction only achieved this with the support of MP Sascha Herr, who was expelled from the party because of his contacts with neo-Nazis.

AfD is missing two elected representatives

In the meantime, MP Maximilian Müger has also left the group. Because the group can no longer muster the required 27 MPs, it can no longer speak for this number of MPs in the committee. It now falls two short of the so-called appointment minority.

Based on Schwertfeger’s report, the state parliament administration and the other four factions are demanding, according to Pürsün, that the AfD now also provide 27 signatures for each of its motions for evidence. The AfD objects. The committee can decide to take evidence even without a motion from the minority, says MP Volker Richter.

This is clear from the constitution of the state of Hesse. A motion from one committee member is therefore basically sufficient. “However, as long as we have to assume that the other committee members have a firm, reluctant attitude towards the motion, we will preferably submit motions for evidence by the minority, i.e. with the signatures of 27 members of the Hessian state parliament. Then the decision on the motions for evidence and their implementation can be enforced in court if necessary.

The other factions are waiting to see whether the AfD faction can actually collect the 27 signatures. Like Herr, Müger will also keep his mandate. The AfD had pressured him to leave. According to his own statement, his former faction will support him if it represents the issues for which it was mandated by the voters.