Gudkov fights off the mandate in the courts

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on Wednesday, January 16, will consider the complaint of former State Duma deputy Gennady Gudkov regarding the illegal deprivation of his deputy mandate. He has already appealed to the Constitutional Court, which found no reason to consider “disposal” illegal.

“Socialist-Revolutionary” Gudkov was deprived of his mandate on September 14, 2012 due to the fact that he allegedly combined work in parliament with commercial activities. Gudkov denied everything, but the deputies (mostly members of the United Russia and LDPR factions) still voted to revoke his mandate. However, later, according to some media reports, the Prosecutor General's Office stated that the accusations were not confirmed and there were no claims against Gudkov. But his mandate was never returned. Now the former deputy is on a business trip in Europe. On the eve of the preliminary hearings to appeal the deprivation of his mandate in the Supreme Court, Gennady Gudkov told PublicPost that the court is under pressure from the authorities and that he himself is not eager to return to this Duma: it’s all about principle.

— Do you think there is a chance that after a negative decision by the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court will decide in your favor?

You know, if we had a basic law in our country, I would have no doubt that all this would be accepted in my favor. But I know for a fact that the court is under pressure. My problem, or rather the problem of my opponents, is that I myself am also from the system, and in this system there are not only people who blindly carry out the orders of the authorities, but also people who, in general, transmit information. Not everyone is happy with what is happening to the country and the people today. Therefore, I know for a fact that the court is under very strong pressure from the executive branch.

— Do you have specific names?

I know right down to the names, but I won’t say them. If it were me, it would be stupid to do this - no one will confess, of course, but I will set people up. And I just want to draw your attention to one detail: not only did our Constitutional Court disgrace itself with this decision, it also made it on the eve of the New Year so that everyone would forget. That is, they work not as a court, but as a PR agency. And, in my opinion, they are not particularly shy about this.

— You think that the decision will be negative. What's next?

Next is Europe, where I am right now. And believe that in the European Court we have a chance for an objective judicial review. In general, if I were the Russian leadership, I would not put pressure on the court in order to avoid shame in Europe. One country has already adopted the Magnitsky Act, and now they will do so in Europe. It will be a complete disgrace. How will we respond? Should we ban European countries from adopting children?

— Do you even want to work again with the people who deprived you of your mandate?

To be honest, I am counting on re-election. And I will do everything to make them really happen. It seems to me that it is illegitimate and meaningless. And taking into account the fact that she also received the nickname “enraged printer”... The law turns out to be one worse than the other, the “law of scoundrels” in the popular consciousness. Somehow I don’t want to return and work in the Duma that earned such flattering epithets. My son and Ilya Ponomarev were ready to surrender their mandates, but we forbade them to do so.

- Why?

Because we desperately need them there in order to solve for us those tasks that are important to us. All this, in general, bears little resemblance to a normal Duma. I am sincerely sorry that people like Vladislav Tretyak, Joseph Kobzon and many distinguished people compromise themselves by participating in the work of such a parliament.

— In fact, is appealing a matter of principle?

Exclusively!