NKP thanks to all who Thursday, July 13, participated in the meeting at the Riga castle to protest against such methods as "talks of the oligarchs", and hoped that the President heard the position of the meeting participants.
"Our message is clear and unambiguous - this rigmarole and silence can no longer continue. Must be followed by clear actions that the people can trust their representatives," reads the statement released by the NCP.
NCP recalled that in the Manifesto put forward three requirements: the President should demand the resignation involved in "negotiations oligarchs" Ministers Minister of transport Uldis Augulis (sacs) Minister of agriculture Janis Duklavs (sacs), the Council for national security and Minister of justice Dzintars rusnaks needs to assess the situation from the point of view of the principles of democracy and to demand explanations from attorney General Eric Kallmeyer on legal incompetence of the state in protecting its interests, and in the event of unsatisfactory explanations, to demand the resignation of the attorney General.
The party said it will wait on the President of clear answers to manifest questions and will not stop it if the reaction is not followed.
Heard at the hotel Rīdzene negotiations between politicians and businessmen was one of the key proofs in the so-called business oligarchs, which was filed in 2011 on such articles of the Criminal law as bribery, legalization of illegally obtained funds, abuse of office and violations of restrictions on officials.
The Bureau on prevention and struggle against corruption investigated the case for several years, but decided to stop because the overheard conversations were insufficient evidence for indictment.
Released by the magazine "Ir" transcripts of the negotiations reveal how politicians and business leaders have built a business that they, according to public claims, is not a planned privatization of state enterprises, the reshuffle of officials and docile obedience of the media. After the publication of the transcripts of the attorney General and the Bureau on prevention and struggle against corruption claimed that he learned of the publication in the journal a lot, because part of the talks remained within the framework of prompt investigations and has not been applied to the materials of the criminal case.