On June 28, Venelina Popova was invited to the police to testify for her analytical comment in „Toest“ on March 6, 2021. It is not specified against whom the pre-trial proceedings were initiated, which became the subject of the interrogation, but in connection with vote trading. However, her article does not focus on this topic, but her investigation for another media („Za istinata“) from April 4. It is in one of the municipalities involved in the scandal for a bought vote that the district police department is located, where the journalist was summoned as a witness. You read correctly – witness to the writing of your own text in „Toest“. What follows is her detailed account, published by herself in “Toest”:
In the last parliamentary elections on April 4, I followed in the footsteps of a plot of buying votes in the municipality of Gurkovo. I had a signal and documents, more precisely a protocol from Decree №1269/23.03.2021 of Junior Prosecutor Simeonov from Sliven, which described in detail a scheme for buying votes. It has been played more than once with voters who register at ther current address in a given settlement in order to vote for a specific party /candidate. After the implementation of the scheme, they receive the appropriate remuneration. In this case, it was about Roma people from the municipality of Tvarditsa, registered at the current address in the village of Panicherevo in the neighboring municipality of Gurkovo, to vote for the party list indicated to them for the ridiculous amount of BGN 20.
On the day of the elections I went to Gurkovo with the idea of checking with the GRRAO (Civil Registration and Administrative Services) how many people were newly registered at their current address in the municipality, but I was denied access to information by the mayor, Mariyan Tsonev, who was nominated by the MRF in the last local elections. Not even Director of the Regional Directorate of the Ministry of Interior – Senior Commissioner Stoyanov, later replaced by interim minister Boyko Rashkov, was able to help me with my journalistic investigation. On election day, the Stara Zagora District Prosecutor Dicho Atanasov confirmed that the decree was transferred to the jurisdiction of the District Court in Stara Zagora, a pre-trial proceeding was initiated and is being actively pursued. Two days after the elections, with Valya Ahchieva, who was doing an investigation on the same topic, we saw the electoral rolls in the REC and were convinced that there were people registered under their current address – somewhere even in unbuilt and uninhabited houses.
In May, I received a phone call from an investigating police officer at the Tvarditsa Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior. He explained to me politely that I should be questioned about buying votes in the Gurkovo elections. I decided that the changed situation in the country – in particular in the Ministry of Interior – had accelerated the investigation of electoral fraud, and I agreed to assist the police. However, I suggested that the interrogation take place in Stara Zagora, where I live, and not in Tvarditsa. After some time, another investigating police officer called me, this time from Stara Zagora, and we arranged for the interrogation to take place on the morning of June 28 at the Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior.
However, what was my surprise to find out that the questions I had to answer were not about my publications on the subject in „Dnevnik“ and „Za pravda“ of April 4 this year, but about my analytical commentary in „Toest“ of March 6 with the title „The missing Peevski and the Possible Turkish Trace“. They explained to me that pre-trial proceedings had been initiated, without specifying against whom, under Art. 167 of the Penal Code, which refers to penalties for persons who buy or organise the buying of votes during elections. Because of this, I am called upon to give explanations for my text in „Toest“.the purchase of votes during elections. That’s why I’m used to explaining my text in „Toest“.
The only part of it that mentions vote trading is this:
„The gradual ridding of the Bulgarian Turks of the fears of the so-called Revival Process, consciously nurtured over the years by their political representation, freed them from the obligation to maintain and reproduce it permanently. While more and more Bulgarian Muslims, especially the younger ones, stopped voting for the MRF or supported one of the alternative but short-lived political projects, the mass Roma vote for the ethnic party became more and more visible.
But not because she works with the community to improve her education, and hence her quality of life. Not because it includes successful ethnic groups in its lists or because there are legislative initiatives related to closing ghettos, providing jobs and socializing these people. The reason is the massive vote trade, which is growing in size, demoralizing the democratic process and risking completely distorting it.“
I was asked how I came up with the topics for my political analyzes and comments and how I gathered information about them.
They also stated that they were questioning me as a witness.
I explained to the policeman that I could not be a witness since I was the author of the text. And after a brief telephone consultation with a lawyer, which was allowed to me by the investigating officer, I refused to testify. I was warned of possible consequences, such as a forced interrogation at the Regional Department of the Ministry of the Interior in Tvarditsa and a fine of BGN 3,000.
When I tried to sort out the puzzle of the events, it became clear that the questioning could not have any connection with my articles in „Dnevnik“ and „For the Truth“ about the electoral manipulation and vote-buying schemes in the municipality of Gurkovo. Because the pre-trial proceedings were initiated in the District Prosecutor’s Office in Sliven at the end of March, and the texts in „Dnevnik“ and „For the Truth“ were published on the election day of April 4. And the questioning didn’t mention them at all. This gives me reason to suspect that there is other intent in the actions of the Prosecutor’s Office, and the questioning of my article in „Toest“ may come as a continuation of the attacks against me last year after my publications related to „the most generous donor in the country during the pandemic of COVID-19“ – Delyan Peevski.
Let us recall briefly:
On 15 April 2020, the website „For Truth“ published my first text on the topic of the ownership of the companies through which MP Delyan Peevski makes donations to various hospitals in the country. The article gives as an example the MP’s donation to the Gurkovo municipality in the form of 1000 rapid tests for coronavirus intended for the residents of the quarantined village of Panicherevo. Then the mayor of Gurkovo municipality refused to name the company that issued the donation documents – he did not have the consent of the „donor“ Delyan Peevski.
Ten days later, Peevski’s publications Telegraf and Monitor attacked me with insults and lies. This was followed by positions in my defence by the Association of European Journalists and many journalists and media. Days later, I published the second part of the investigation into the donations by the oligarch MP – and I did not return to this case.
Until today, when I was questioned by the police about a text of mine. Again about Delyan Peevski. That is why I address the following questions to Prosecutor General Ivan Geshev:
- Is the article „The Missing Peevski and the Possible Turkish Trace“ an occasion for initiating pre-trial proceedings №41 / 1921 according to the inventory of the Regional Directorate of the Ministry of Interior in Tvarditsa? Which prosecutor from the District Prosecutor’s Office in Sliven ordered its formation and on what grounds?
- If the pre-trial proceedings have been instituted under the provisions of Art. 167 of the Penal Code from the District Prosecutor’s Office in Sliven, how does my publication correspond to it?
- Does this pre-trial proceedings have anything to do with my previous texts and investigations related to former MRF MP Delyan Peevski?
- Is such an interrogation permissible from a legal point of view, or does it seem more like an attempt to „respect“ journalists who allow themselves to write about people who are untouchable by the judiciary with enormous power and financial resources in the country?
These questions must be answered, Mr. Geshev. Otherwise, the feeling that the Prosecutor’s office is spreading an umbrella over such people will increase in the society, while the people in front of the Court of Justice chanting for your resignation will multiply.
