Former Prosecutor General Ivan Geshev left 3 years ago, but the model known from his leadership of the prosecutor's office is trying to enter the management of the highest body of the judiciary through candidates for the SJC who are publicly known to be associated with him, and are now hiding behind the mask of new concepts and criticism of the current status quo.
Krassimira Filipova and Vladimir Nikolov were among the favorites of the prosecutorial election in 2022 and were elected in the first round. The election left questions about the organized support and trust in electronic voting, without any manipulation of the result being established.
Today, the same candidates talk about dependencies, personnel circles and lost trust. The change in language is visible, but none of them take stock of their previous behavior.
Filipova: from the top of the government to criticism of the system
Krassimira Filipova was appointed Deputy Prosecutor General in January 2020 at the suggestion of Geshev. She remained in office almost until the end of his term and supervised the work of prosecutors from the “Judicial“ and “Administrative“ departments.
Before that, her career passed through the position of Deputy Administrative Head at the regional, district and appellate levels. Thus, two consecutive transitions to a higher level were made through deputy appointments based on a proposal from an administrative head.
In 2022, Filipova reported “significant progress“ of the Supreme Judicial Council in upholding independence. Today, she describes a violation of legality, a lack of responsibility, the isolation of ordinary magistrates and early elections.
It is interesting when progress turned into a violation of legality? Which practices did she challenge as Geshev's deputy and which decisions did she object to?
Filipova cannot present her participation in the top management as proof of competence, and when asked about its failures, remain a bystander.
As someone who was part of the top, she owes more than a new pre-election vocabulary, Filipova owes an account of what happened during the PRB government of which she was a part.
Nikolov: public defense has a chronology
With Vladimir Nikolov, the facts are even more eloquent. Already in 2019, he defined Geshev's choice as extremely transparent and open. At the prosecutor's meeting in “Boyana“ in 2020, after the speech of the Prosecutor General, he presented the prosecutor's office as a particularly flexible and reformed institution.
Public objections to the request for Geshev's release and warnings against instilling distrust in the prosecutor's office followed.
Nikolov's career growth is also interesting. In 2021, an ordinary district prosecutor became the head of the Pleven District Prosecutor's Office through election as administrative head. Geshev attended his inauguration. Almost at the same time, Nikolov headed the Association of Prosecutors in Bulgaria.
Under Nikolov's presidency, the APB made a series of active public positions in defense of the prosecutor's office under Geshev. The line between protection of the professional community and personal protection of its leader is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish.
The current Board of the association claims that under Nikolov it was used as a personal shield for the Prosecutor General, and over ten public texts were distributed without prior discussion and an explicit decision of the governing body. This is an accusation in a public dispute that is subject to a response.
Today, Nikolov writes about circles of influence, abuse of office and illegal management practices. Where was this categoricalness of his under Geshev? Which dependencies did he name then? Can it be easily forgotten how he used the platform of the then professional magistrate organization against them?
The protection of the former Prosecutor General is documented with dates and quotes that can easily be found in his media appearances. The opposition he is talking about now is still looking for its evidence.
Iliyev and Petrova: the people of the Management Board
Ivaylo Volodiev Iliev joined the Management Board of the APB in 2021, and in 2022 he became deputy chairman. At a meeting of magistrates in “Boyana“ he defined the proposals for a new selection of prosecutors as a “witch hunt“.
The objection to a political purge is justified. But the rhetoric at the time turned criticism of Geshev into a threat to every prosecutor. The head of the PRB and the professional community were placed under a common shield.
As deputy chairman, Iliev was not just an outside observer. If the APB was managed alone, what did he do then? If the decisions were joint, which ones did he support?
Desislava Petrova is also a member of the Board under Nikolov, and today she is the deputy chairman of the association. Since 2021, she has served as the spokesperson for the SGP, and since 2022, she has been the deputy city prosecutor. When the current leadership makes serious accusations against the previous chairman, those who participated in the then Board also owe an answer. The change of chairman does not erase the general management biography.
Mileva: the spokesperson and institutional protection
Siika Mileva was the most recognizable spokesperson for the prosecutor's office under Geshev, and after a secondment to the Supreme People's Court she was promoted there based on a competitive ranking. At the protest in front of the Courthouse in May 2023, she placed the media publications, legislative changes, and street protests in the overall picture of pressure against the prosecutor's office. The statement was made at a time of great tension, but it left the line between protecting the institution and the attitude towards legitimate public criticism unclear. As a candidate for the Supreme Judicial Council, Mileva must show how she will distinguish institutional independence from protecting the specific leader.
New concepts, old question
The “Geshev“ model was not only the personality of the prosecutor general. It had leadership, spokespeople, personnel mechanisms and professional protection.
Today's promises of change will have value only if they are accompanied by an honest assessment. When people from the management and public circles of a model present themselves as its reformers, they must prove this change that they talk about, otherwise it remains only empty talk.
Geshev is gone. Now the prosecutors must decide whether his model will go with him, or whether he will enter the SJC through the personnel door.