Former Minister Makis Voridis responds to the accusations attributed to him, SYRIZA and New Left, with a post on X. As he notes “His “crime” is that he has agreed with OPEKEPE’s recommendation for the implementation of a ministerial decision, that of the technical solution, and that he called for the resignation of the President of the Organization. In particular, in his post, Mr. Voridis notes:
A first, brief commentary on those of PASOK, SYRIZA and the New Left:
(A) Two of the acts attributed to me are alleged to have been committed in 2021 – that is, at a time when I was not Minister of Rural Development and Food. Therefore, any further commentary is unnecessary. How is it possible to consider my infidelity as a minister, for acts allegedly committed by state -owned managers while not even having the ministerial status?
B) I am also attributed to me as synergy in infidelity that I have signed, Agree to the proposal of the then OPECEPE administration – which was appointed by SYRIZA – for the proposal to allocate the pasture, in the execution of a ministerial decision of SYRIZA. And today, I am accused by SYRIZA himself.
On the substance of the category: The distribution was made on the basis of ministerial decision And it is absolutely legal. More of this will be said during the forthcoming debate in Parliament. However, I wonder: How can it be synergy with infidelity by consenting to the implementation of a legitimate regulatory ministerial decision?
C) Finally, I am accused Because I asked Mr Varra’s resignation. If it is now considered a felony to seek the resignation of a subordinate, then this category needs a lot of fictional imagination to explain.
In conclusion, my “crime” is that I have agreed with OPECEPE’s recommendation to implement a ministerial decision, that of the technical solution, and that I requested the resignation of the President of the Organization. These are the “offenses” that are attributed to me.
I will come back with all the necessary legal and political arguments, when I need to. However, it is obvious that these objections are fully justified by the New Democracy’s position on the sake of non -existence of criminal liability.