As the scandal over fabricated indictments by prosecutors intensifies, even progressive media outlets are raising critical voices. With the details of the alleged fabrications largely exposed through a parliamentary investigation, the demand for swift corrective action is growing. However, simply waiting for a trial outcome is deemed insufficient by some commentators.
In a recent discussion, a proposal emerged that could strike a balance: withdrawing an indictment should only be permitted after a judicial verdict confirms the fabrication. Under this framework, a special counsel—whose independence is often questioned since they are appointed by the president—would investigate the allegations. If the judiciary subsequently finds the prosecutors guilty of fabricating the indictment, that verdict would serve as a solid legal basis for withdrawal.
This approach, it is argued, would withstand criticism about conflicts of interest, as the decision to withdraw would be grounded in a court ruling rather than an executive order. Progressive media have previously criticized the appearance of a president-appointed special counsel withdrawing an indictment related to the president. By making the judiciary the gatekeeper, such attacks would be mitigated.
The discussion reflects a broader consensus within progressive circles that fabricated indictments are a serious issue. With elections approaching and the campaign season set to begin, proponents urge that these discussions be consolidated into concrete action. The proposed solution—a legal hurdle requiring judicial confirmation before dismissal—could serve as a meaningful step toward restoring public trust in the justice system.