The former director of the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI), George Maior denied on Friday, for Adevarul Live, the existence of what the press called lately the “binomial SRI – DNA” regarding the struggle against corruption”.
“There is no SRI – DNA binomial, but a collaboration in the limits of the law. I do not think that such speculations are favourable to Romania’s image in the civilized world. Also, they are hurting people who need legal means in order to defend themselves. I do not think that they will earn anything by this kind of speech. I think that these institutions are more mature now. Nobody earns anything from joining such debate. Prosecutors are not included in this political dynamics”, Maior said.
Invited to comment on the theories circulated lately, according to which these actions of the National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA) are blocking the country and destructuring the entire political class, Maior replied:
“Neither DNA, nor SRI has the objective to replace the political class. These are effects generated by sending important political characters to Court. Elections are coming and the lists will be full. They would better come up with honest people. It is a consequence of a phenomenon, not a direction assumed by DNA or any other institution. There is an element of discouraging members of the administration to initiate acts of corruption, which is delighting. I cannot believe that, if there is a legal trial with certain contracts, the person who signs them will simply be blamed. Nobody has to fear that things are not completed fairly and legally. I do not think that anyone empowers DNA to come to arrest one person who has acted correctly, but I am aware of this mentality.
Asked whether he knew so well the Head of DNA, Laura Codruta Kovesi, with whom he had worked, and if he had any impression that she had political projects or other political purposes, George Maior replied: “Absolutely not. Never. I never had the slightest sensation in this direction. O know her as a professional, devoted to her job. That certain environments generate speculations; this us the responsibility of people looking to attack the credibility of the representatives of these institutions and, when you see that you have 50 to 60 per cent, you consider using this capital in politics. Perhaps we should not present such persons in such charts. Or perhaps we should, in order to evaluate the efficiency of the institution itself,” Maior concluded.
