The former chairman of the Ķekava County Council, Juris Žilko (LA/”Izaugsme”), submitted the proposal for the release of Vītolas from his position.
In Žilko’s opinion, the situation is similar to the one in 2019, when Vitols was detained. At that time, Vitols himself resigned from the position of deputy chairman.
After the vote, deputy Andris Ceļmalnieks (JV) explained that he did not support the review of this issue in the city council, because there is a presumption of innocence and no person should be considered guilty until a conviction has entered into force. The Constitutional Court also said that an accused person should not be treated as if his guilt had been proven, if the court proceedings have not been concluded.
Deputy Andris Vītols, on the other hand, stated that he voted for reviewing this issue in the city council, because it is not about the presumption of innocence, but rather about the reputation of council members. In his view, the reputation of every council member is currently tarnished.
As reported, in October, the Riga Regional Court sentenced Vītolas, the deputy chairman of the Ķekava County Council and former basketball player, to four years in prison for demanding a 30,000-euro bribe, the LETA agency found out.
Vītols and the other person accused in this case will be able to appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court (AT). Upon receiving a cassation complaint, the AT will first have to decide whether to initiate cassation proceedings at all.
The Riga Regional Court has announced the summary judgment, with which it satisfied the appeal protest of the prosecutor, which was submitted for the judgment of the Court of Economic Affairs of April 24, 2023, by which Vītols was found not guilty and acquitted for demanding a bribe of 30,000 euros and a private person for attempting to broker a bribe. , the LETA agency found out at the prosecutor’s office.
According to the indictment, an official of the municipality of Ķekava region demanded a bribe of EUR 30,000 from a businessman so that the businessman would receive the last payment from the municipality for carrying out construction works according to a project, while the other person tried to transfer the said bribe from the bribe giver to the requester of the bribe - an official of the municipality of Ķekava region, the prosecutor’s office stated.
The Riga Regional Court decided to cancel the judgment of the Court of Economic Affairs in full and to recognize the accused persons as guilty of committing the crimes they were charged with.
The regional court imposed custodial sentences on the defendants, that is, the state official was sentenced to four years of imprisonment, deprived of the right to hold positions in the state administration for two years and probation supervision for one year. On the other hand, the second person was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for one year, the prosecutor’s office said.
Currently, Vītols is the deputy chairman of the regional council for development issues.
Vītols was once a member of the Latvian basketball team and a multiple Latvian champion.
How does the presumption of innocence affect the immediate actions taken against elected officials facing legal allegations?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Political Analyst
Time.news Editor (TNE): Good day, and thank you for joining us. Today, we have with us a political analysis expert to discuss the recent developments surrounding Deputy Andris Vītols and the decision of the Ķekava County Council. Let’s dive right in. To frame the issue, can you give us some background on who Andris Vītols is and why he’s currently in the spotlight?
Political Analyst (PA): Absolutely, and thank you for having me. Andris Vītols, a former basketball player, is the deputy chairman of the Ķekava County Council. He recently received a four-year prison sentence for demanding a 30,000-euro bribe, which has raised significant concerns about the integrity of local governance. His case is particularly attention-grabbing due to its implications for public trust in elected officials.
TNE: Yes, it certainly has brought a lot of scrutiny. The former chairman of the County Council, Juris Žilko, proposed Vītols’ release from his position, citing similarities to Vītols’ past resignation in 2019. What do you make of Žilko’s rationale?
PA: Juris Žilko’s argument seems to suggest a recognition of the complexity of Vītols’ situation. Historically, political backlash often follows legal troubles, but precedent matters. Žilko may believe that past incidents set a framework for handling the current allegations. However, it’s crucial to remember that circumstances can differ greatly from one case to another.
TNE: Deputy Andris Ceļmalnieks raised an important point too: the presumption of innocence. How does this legal principle fit into the discussions on whether council members should be subject to immediate action based on allegations?
PA: It’s a significant point. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of justice systems worldwide. Ceļmalnieks is right that no individual should be considered guilty until proven otherwise. However, the tension lies in balancing this legal principle with the reputational integrity of the council itself. The public expects its officials to uphold ethical standards that transcend mere legality.
TNE: Which brings us to Vītols’ own comments about the ‘tarnished reputation’ of council members. How significant is the potential impact of one member’s actions on the entire council?
PA: Vītols’ perspective highlights a critical issue. While he’s right that one individual’s actions can cast a shadow on the entire council, the response to such an incident is equally significant. The council’s actions—or inaction—can either restore trust or further erode it. Transparency and accountability are demanded by the public, and how this situation unfolds will either reinforce or challenge the council’s credibility.
TNE: Given that Vītols can appeal to the Supreme Court, what potential outcomes do you foresee, and how might this affect the political scene in Ķekava?
PA: The path to appeal can be lengthy and unpredictable. If the Supreme Court upholds the sentence, it could spell further disaster for the council’s reputation, potentially leading to a shake-up in council membership and governance practices. Conversely, if Vītols’ sentence is overturned, it may create divisions about accountability within the council, as well as among constituents.
TNE: It sounds like there’s a lot at stake in this unfolding drama. What do you think will be the public’s reaction as things progress?
PA: The public reaction will largely depend on how transparent and proactive the council is in communicating about the situation and the steps being taken to address it. Openness will be key. If the council can demonstrate a commitment to ethical governance, they may maintain public trust. However, if they appear to sidestep accountability, we could see a significant backlash. The political landscape in Ķekava hangs in the balance.
TNE: Thank you for your insights. It’s clear that the situation is complex and evolving. We’ll be sure to keep our eye on how it all unfolds. Thanks again for joining us today!
PA: Thank you for having me! It’s always a pleasure to discuss these pressing issues.