Public Prosecutor Ljupcho Kocevski has rejected an interpellation submitted by six members of the Levica party, asserting that he performs his duties with honesty, responsibility, and transparency. He characterized the interpellation as a politically motivated attempt to undermine the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s independence, arguing it lacked legal basis and substantive arguments.

Kocevski addressed four key points raised in the interpellation. Firstly, regarding the Kochani tragedy, he refuted claims of selective investigations favoring VMRO members, stating that the Public Prosecutor’s Office acts solely on evidence, irrespective of party affiliation or ethnicity. He detailed actions taken against owners, security personnel, responsible individuals in various institutions, and high-ranking police officials, assuring that the investigation aims to determine the full scope of responsibility.

Secondly, Kocevski denied allegations of political influence from Prime Minister Hristijan Mickoski, dismissing claims of a deal involving his dismissal procedure in exchange for biased investigations. He asserted that the procedure for his dismissal was unfounded, citing the European Commission’s report on the rule of law in North Macedonia. He further emphasized that the Council of Public Prosecutors had issued a negative opinion on the dismissal initiative.

Thirdly, addressing concerns about “functional chaos” in the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office Skopje, Kocevski explained that he initiated disciplinary proceedings against the head of that office and another prosecutor. He stated that the Disciplinary Commission unanimously found them guilty of serious disciplinary violations and that they received the most severe sanctions provided by law. He defended his decision to hold prosecutors accountable for unprofessional conduct and incompetence, noting that conditions in the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office Skopje are improving.

Fourthly, concerning accusations of inaction regarding illegal constructions in Skopje, Kocevski asserted that the Public Prosecutor’s Office has initiated cases based on both hearsay and filed criminal charges in various municipalities. He clarified that some cases are in pre-investigation, investigation, indictment, or court proceedings. He also addressed the use of “hearsay” as a basis for forming cases when responsible institutions fail to report crimes, highlighting its importance in addressing publicly known allegations.

Kocevski concluded by disputing the interpellation’s portrayal of a “dysfunctional and toxic atmosphere” within the Public Prosecutor’s Office. He highlighted the European Commission’s report, which acknowledges progress in investigations and indictments for corruption offenses. He urged the members of the parliament to reject the interpellation, safeguard the institution’s independence, and protect the professionalism of all public prosecutors.