Kastanidis "opens fire" on Simitis

The only thing he didn’t say is that Mr. Simitis is the “high priest of corruption”. Mr. Haris Kastanidis decided not only to answer the former PM’s letter, but also to mention a “shady” deal that began 15 years ago.

Mr. Kastanidis, speaking in Parliament during the German company investigation discussion, reserved his shocking revelations for none other than Mr. Simitis. According to Mr. Kastanidis’ evidence, there was a bill of law in 1997 which would bring transparency to the procurement process, but due to Mr. Simitis’ handling it never reached Parliament, and in turn led to the “tragic incidents which we witness today”.

As you can imagine, this caused a disruption in Parliament as New Democracy MPs demanded that the meeting stops, so they could read the letters and “reverse the outcome of the inquiry”.

Furthermore, Mr. Simitis’ letter mentioned Mr. Kastanidis’ resignation after the rejection of his proposal to establish an independent authority for Commissions, adding that the guarantees and transparency framework “ensured effective proposal control”. Mr. Simitis wondered if Mr. Kastanidis had a moral problem, as implied by New Democracy, since he participated in the 2003 government.

Mr. Kastanidis stated that “Yesterday, Mr. Simitis sent a letter. His views are respected because he did not do it when the investigative committee was formed. He claims that during the preliminary contract talks, none was being controlled by an independent authority and raised the question of morality as to my participation in the 2003 government. In an indirect yet clear manner, from 30/8/97 onwards, many answers were given to the Greek people, but I feel obligated to disengage myself from the correspondence of that time. They were communiqués I had no part in. On January of 1996, I took over the Transport ministry and had to manage supplies worth several trillion drachmas.

I requested that Mr. Simitis answer how to handle such a colossal number of commissions since the enormous conflicting interests they involve make them even harder to keep in check, even causing political instability.

I had proposed the establishment of an independent authority which would be under the PM’s control, and the government had accepted my proposal. On March 1996, my proposal was reviewed by the governmental committee, which in turn stated that it would have to check all commissions, and not just those of the Transportation ministry.

When the new government was formed, I requested that the relevant bill of law be voted on. I was sent a dispatch from Mr. Simitis to fast forward the bill in Parliament. On 25/11, I replied that I am the author of the bill and I am glad to see that the issue of commissions would change for the better, severing all ties between contracts and politicians. On 7/1/97 I received a letter from Mr. Simitis stating that “I have rethought the matter and this law should be forwarded to the committee of government institutions”.

On 8/5/97, after I sent a letter to him stating my insistence, on 12/3/97, and while I was away, the cabinet meeting took place, shooting down the proposal. On 14/5/97, when I returedn from the USA, I send a letter to Mr. Simitis stating clearly that the cabinet decision was wrong.

I returned to government since the former PM requested it of me 8 months before election day, so that I could aid the party. These events are not random, and they represent a turning point. The country’s path would have been totally different if we had severed the ties between contractors and politicians”.