The Director of the Center for Journalistic Investigations of Moldova (CIJM), Cornelia Cozonac, spoke openly in an interview given for the FES/APE foreign policy bulletin about the current problems faced by the Moldovan mass media. She explained how important it is for the investigative press to remain strong and vigilant as one of the primordial conditions of a free and democratic society. Cornelia Cozonac also explained why it is important for the press that shares the values of the government to remain upright and to sanction, when necessary, certain backsliding inherent to any act of government. You will learn about all this and much more in the following lines:

- How do you see the state of the media in the Republic of Moldova today? Is there more freedom of expression or not, compared to the period of the previous governments?

- In general, there is more freedom of expression now, compared to the period of the previous governments led by Vladimir Plahotniuc or Vladimir Voronin. Although I, as a journalist, and our team of the Centre for Journalistic Investigations have always had freedom. For 20 years since the existence of the Centre for Journalistic Investigations, we have been able to do journalistic investigations and publish them. Even though this was back when we didn’t have web portals yet. Even so, we could find at least one newspaper willing to publish our investigations. The experience in this regard was very good as several central and regional independent newspapers published our investigations. In other words, we could work continuously, we could do investigative journalism and we could write on any topic.

In the past, however, it was more difficult to access information of public interest and there were more risks. I remember when my colleagues were doing investigations about Plahotniuc’s security companies, I was really a little afraid. Those private security companies had checking and listening devices, and could intervene. There were risks for us, but nothing happened to us even then.

Of course, the government now is much more open and you don’t have the fear you had before, although strange things still happen. For example, the massive closure of several television stations raises questions. We understand that it is about dubious financing that is related to the fugitive oligarch Ilan Şor and criminal groups, but the authorities are still taking measures in a non-transparent way. We, the media and society, are not presented with sufficient arguments on the basis of which we can assess whether the authorities have acted in good faith and it is not about „cleaning” the uncomfortable media.

With these measures there is a risk of creating a dangerous precedent, and if the government changes, these tools will act against the independent press. For now, we have more questions than answers about what’s going on with the media that was shut down.

Between reasons of national security and censorship

- The suspension of operating licenses for televisions sponsored directly or through intermediaries divided opinions in Moldova. One part of society sees this as an act of censorship, while another believes that security reasons must prevail when it comes to shutting down the televisions of fugitive Kremlinconnected oligarchs. How do you see things?

- If you were to ask me as a citizen, I can say that yes, these televisions or part of these televisions should have been closed. But as an investigative journalist, I want more details. I want to see very concrete details - whether any links have been established with funding or funding coming from outside or elsewhere.

After the closure of these stations, we, the media community, have been somewhat silent. We made a statement together with other non-governmental organizations, an initiative of the Center for Independent Journalism.

And there have been several other statements since the televisions kept shutting down, and the authorities did not respond. The media statements were quite reasoned and asked for more details on the reasoning behind the withdrawal or suspension of the licenses. We have seen that some committees have appeared that took decisions overnight and this is also not transparent. Those decisions are not transparent. The tools they operate with are not transparent and this raises questions and they will be like a big stain on the image of the current government which made these decisions.

We understand that there must be security, that there are some big challenges and risks in the context of the war, but also of the dubious funding from outside the country of certain political groups. Moldova does not need very large funding to corrupt even people who are part of the current government. And it is good that the authorities and special services are vigilant, but still, in relation to the mass media there must be much more transparency and very well-reasoned decisions. You cannot simply close or revoke the license of a television station.

The influence of fugitive oligarchs in the media remains strong

- How influential do you think the media affiliated with the fugitive oligarchs are today? We refer in particular to Ilan Șor and Vlad Plahotniuc.

- I think yes, they are still influential. And these oligarchs will continue to pump money into the media because they need promotion. They aim to overthrow the government, to come to power, but they also have other methods. I see these alternative methods working very well and I think the current authorities should earn from this or at least be able to detect them.

Now these political groups work from person to person. I have also seen many people convinced that the candidate proposed by Ilan Shor is exactly the one they should choose. I saw this in U.T.A. Gagauzia, in Orhei. Some unknown candidates are promoted and they are voted. These person-to-person networks work very well, they work intensively and for many citizens they are credible. Common people get information about political and social life from these networks working for such characters.

Inconvenient but necessary investigations

- You have written a very interesting investigation about the integrity of the Pre-vetting Commission Chairman Herman von Hebel. The things you have written about were not denied by him. However, you have been the target of several attacks, including from journalists. What can you tell us about this episode?

- We do our work as we have always done it. If there are topics of increased public interest, we give them priority and work on them. This is how we worked when Plahotniuc or Voronin were in power. Now we were surprised to find that there was a very strong and multi-faceted attack. I suspect it was coordinated, because we were attacked on professional grounds. The authorities’ statements were such as that was a commissioned investigation, that they know who is behind it, and that it was written for a certain purpose, etc. Even fellow journalist attacked us on professional grounds.

The investigation was routine in the sense that we usually work. Someone has suggested to us that there are openly controversial materials about Herman von Hebel, the chairman of the Pre-Vetting Commission. I started from some materials from the Dutch press, I took some materials from the New York Times and The Guardian, they are all open sources.

It was an audit report from when Herman von Hebel was president of the Secretariat of the Hague Court of Justice. He carried out a reform there, fired several people, who were later reinstated, and several illegalities were found. All these data were presented in an audit report. There was then more criticism against Hebel, even from the judges of the Hague Court.

We found all this information, translated it and documented it further. I provided cross-reference links to that material, so there was absolutely nothing unverified. I also did a fact-checking, sending a request to the Court of Appeal in the Netherlands, based on the information according to which Herman von Hebel was working for them.

Actually, one problem was that I couldn’t find von Hebel’s detailed CV, namely since he has been working for the Pre-Vetting Commission. I could not find this document. We had to request it from Parliament. And I obtained it unofficially, as it was not available as public information. From that CV I saw that he is a judge at a Court of Appeal in the Netherlands and have requested confirmation. We have been confirmed that he is still a judge there. In fact, this situation is a conflicting one as he should not hold another public position during the period in which he is active within the Pre-Vetting Commission. Von Hebel later admitted that he had worked there for five days. Even so, this is a violation of our law and I don’t know why this was overlooked.

From the discussion with Olesea Stamate, former chair of the Legal Commission for Appointments and Immunities, it was clear that the current government is dissatisfied with von Hebel’s work. Even Olesea Stamate said, in the discussion we had, that “we can’t wait to get rid of him.” This, which is not publicly known, brings to the surface certain problems with the PreVetting Commission and some of its members.

I understand that some members of the commission were appointed by the development partners and our authorities cannot say anything. I understand that our authorities did not have the courage to tell our development partners that this candidate did not meet all the integrity criteria or at least had a problem. But the truth is that no one has checked this aspect. Olesea Stamate told me that they have received some information about Herman von Hebel, but that it was too late.

The press and involuntary or pecuniary political affiliation

- How important is it for the investigative media to keep an eye on all the actors in the political spectrum and to keep their professionalism even when it comes to those politicians who work for the same values that the journalists believe in?

- By its very nature, the press must be in opposition to government. So, it must monitor what all public actors are doing, how public affairs and public money are managed, and if those who hold public positions are people of integrity. That’s what the press is for.

Sure, we share the same values promoted by the current government, such as European integration and the fight against corruption, but that doesn’t mean we have to relax and be apathetic or politically regimented, that is, write what the government wants and that’s it. The media must monitor what the politicians are doing in order not to let them slip into corruption schemes because our society is affected by corruption and we cannot believe that when the government changed, only very honest politicians came in.

However, there will be people who will be tempted to take over the corruption schemes and I am already hearing more and more information about certain corruption schemes being perpetuated. For example, some former heads of public institutions told us that before they came to office, for example, about 60,000 euros were collected monthly from various smaller structures to the top management of the respective institution. The person who held a position in that institution said that now, that amount is probably collected in the same way, only that it goes somewhere lower, because at the top level such a thing is not accepted.

So, some corruption schemes are probably still at work. Thus, the temptation to fall into the net of those who make the corruption schemes, I suspect, is great. In conclusion, I believe that even representatives of the current power can slide towards the respective schemes.

That’s why it’s important for investigative journalists to be vigilant, document the cases, and find sources, including from within. By the way, the head of the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office, Veronica Dragalin, was talking to us at a press club about the fact that some corruption schemes were still operating at the customs offices, with ramifications including at the level of prosecutors, which had been previously established.

Prosecutors admit these schemes exist. If the prosecutors admit it, it means that the schemes are working. And journalists could help unravel those or other schemes that may be hatched. That is why we must continue to work constantly as journalists. And we already have to pay attention to what is happening in the mandate of the current power.

- What are the major problems facing the investigative media in the Republic of Moldova today? Is there perhaps pressure or selfcensorship from the media to report on certain aspects of the government precisely so as not to endanger Moldova’s European path in any way? Do you feel that there is such a trend?

- Yes, I think so. From my monitoring, I can say that there is a group of media outlets that are trying to support the government. I suspect they may also have projects to support the current government. I do not have very concrete information in this regard, but as certain media institutions act, I believe that they try, through their editorial policy, to support this government, without criticizing it or without ensuring a correct informational balance, with critical sources. Precisely so as not to stimulate those who want to change the government and who are pumping money to this end. We know that money is coming from Russia, money is coming from corruption schemes, in order to affect this government.

I have noticed that there is a media group that considers itself independent but is not very critical of the government. Or there are taboo topics towards government. But this is just as dangerous. This used to happen in several postSoviet countries. For example, in Kazakhstan, when Nursultan Nazarbayev was in power, journalists said they were free as long as they did not criticize the government. So, they could not write anything about the top leadership of the country, even if the local government could be criticized.

Another example is Georgia, where the government gave them generous advertising contracts. According to the monitoring carried out by NGOs, the Georgian-language press carried a lot of propaganda and disinformation on behalf of the Russian Federation.

So, there are methods and tools to corrupt the press or make it loyal - namely money. We mean advertising, projects that are directed towards certain media and in this way the government gains the loyalty of the media. In this way, the press avoids certain topics. For example, and I’m getting back to the investigation of Herman von Hebel. In the first days after publication, no independent media from Moldova took up the subject. It was only when discussions on this issue started in Parliament, when it was discussed on social networks, that certain media started publishing materials related to that investigation. I saw then how part of the media waited to see what would happen and did not address the subject, although it was an issue of increased public interest. But because the investigation somehow affects the justice reform that the government is carrying out, some media hesitated to publish on the issue.