Right-wing councilor opens proceedings against MD secretary for anti-government remarks

The lay councilors of the CSM, Isabella Bertolini of the League and Claudia Eccher of FdI, have requested the opening of a case with the first Commission and the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Cassation so that any disciplinary profiles against the secretary of the Democratic Judiciary can be assessed, Stefano Musolino.

The two councilors mention Musolino’s participation as a speaker at an event of the ‘No Ponte’ association, “having a marked anti-government connotation, concerning – among other topics – the security bill”. Bertolini and Eccher cite his “political statements”, which “represent a violation of the constitutional principles of impartiality and independence which according to the Constitution all magistrates must observe”.

The councilors also cited other statements by Musolino on the program Piazza Pulita on La7. Next week the first Commission will make its assessments on the possible practice.

In the request – already based on the first Commission of the CSM which has jurisdiction over transfers due to environmental incompatibilities – Bertolini and Eccher report a press article which refers to Musolino’s participation in the ‘No Ponte’ initiative held at the ‘Nuvola socio-cultural centre’ Rossa’ of Villa San Giovanni in Reggio Calabria. On that occasion Musolino would have said: “We are very worried”; “there is a problem of managing dissent that cannot be addressed through criminal instruments”.

“We are living in a moment in which very important choices are presented before us. Conflicts can be harmful if they are not based on mutual respect for positions and can instead be very fruitful if they are managed and governed. But to do so, we cannot resort to the criminal instrument. New rules can be invented to radicalize dissent and even criminalize it.”

During his participation in the ‘Piazza Pulita’ program on La7, the secretary of the Democratic Judiciary would have instead said: “Impartiality does not exist as a pre-given condition, as a state of the magistrate, impartiality is something towards which we tend” and again “because instead those (magistrates) who are a little more dissenting towards government policies risk no longer being (impartial)”.

The reply from Santalucia (Anm)

“This is no longer a claim for impartiality, but a request for silence and it is not acceptable. A magistrate on justice issues can intervene by arguing and explaining why it is our specific professional field, silence cannot be requested in the name of impartiality” .

Thus the president of the National Magistrates Association, Giuseppe Santaluciaon the sidelines of the central steering committee of the ANM.

“The boundary of the possible is being crossed – he adds -. Impartiality is one thing, silent subjection to the government is another. It is not part of our constitutional and democratic physiognomy”.