- According to our information, the Nanterre public prosecutor’s office has been investigating for several days suspicions of “false testimony” targeting five senior figures in the judiciary and the police.
- They are suspected of having made false statements during their hearings before the National Assembly’s commission of inquiry on the obstacles to the independence of the judiciary.
- Chairman of the committee, the MP (LFI) of the North, Ugo Bernalicis, had reported the facts to the court, provoking the disapproval of other MPs.
The public prosecutor of Paris, Rémy Heitz. The Prefect of Police, Didier Lallement. The former head of the national financial prosecutor’s office, Eliane Houlette. The Attorney General, Catherine Champrenault, and the first president of the Paris Court of Appeal, Jean-Michel Hayat. The cast is impressive. But it does not bode well for the follow-up to the procedure.
According to our information, the Nanterre (Hauts-de-Seine) prosecutor’s office has been investigating for several days
on suspicion of “false testimony” targeting five senior figures from the judiciary and the police. ” An investigation is underway. All these reports are subject to group processing ”, confirms to 20 Minutes the Nanterre prosecutor’s office without wanting to “communicate more” on the subject.
This procedure follows the work of the commission of inquiry on the independence of the judiciary chaired by the deputy (LFI) of the North, Ugo Bernalicis. On September 2, on the sidelines of the presentation of the report, he indicated that he had reported to the courts suspicions of “perjury” targeting several personalities heard by the commission. Involving Parisian magistrates, the case has since been disoriented in Nanterre where it is therefore the subject of an investigation.
Written explanations demanded from the respondents
“I am pleasantly surprised by the consequences given to the perjuries that I have reported, testifies Ugo Bernalicis. I was afraid that a classification without follow-up would be pronounced as for the commission of inquiry of the Senate, during the Alexandre Benalla affair. “
The Nanterre public prosecutor’s office carries out checks. According to our information, the people involved had to provide explanations in writing, without having been officially summoned physically. “I’m a little cautious about the somewhat innovative nature of this grouped procedure,” continues Ugo Bernalicis. What matters to me is that we take seriously what it means to testify before a parliamentary commission of inquiry. “
A pretext to talk about LFI’s justice program?
In fact, each personality is criticized for comments made in front of the deputies who have worked on the obstacles to the independence of the judiciary. For example, the Paris prosecutor Rémy Heitz had assured that he had “signed no document giving instructions to [ses services] “During the crisis of” yellow vests “while an internal note suggests the opposite.
Another illustration: the prefect of police, Didier Lallement, is, for his part, accused of not having told the truth when he assured that he had not “found the organizers” of the unauthorized police demonstrations that took place in June 2020 .
Undeclared police demonstrations: with Lallement, it’s easy. pic.twitter.com/mat1M6K5pK
– Alexis Poulin (@ Poulin2012) June 24, 2020
Perceived as being political, the step of the rebellious deputy had tense even within the parliamentary committee. “I’m a little bored, had confided Didier Paris, the rapporteur (LREM). I wonder if all these reports are not a pretext to talk about the program of France rebellious in matters of justice… ”
Instuit or classify: the decision of the Nanterre public prosecutor’s office will tell. The offense of false testimony is punishable by five years imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 euros.