Skip to content

Secretive Google Meet between minister and judge fuels executive interference concerns

A private Google Meet between a top minister and a judge raises alarms. Why is the government hiding the details—and what does it mean for democracy?

in this image i can see a person speaking, holding a microphone in his hand. behind him there is a...
in this image i can see a person speaking, holding a microphone in his hand. behind him there is a banner on which federal is written

Secretive Google Meet between minister and judge fuels executive interference concerns

A meeting between Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt and Constitutional Judge Henning Radtke has sparked controversy, with critics warning of potential executive interference in the judiciary. The meeting, held on October 9, 2022, discussed 'representation and direct democracy', but the government has been reluctant to release details of Dobrindt's speech on Google Meet.

The only confirmed detail of Dobrindt's speech is his discussion with Judge Radtke about accommodating public demand for greater direct participation in the Basic Law. However, efforts to obtain the text of the speech have been unsuccessful. The Interior Ministry initially claimed the remarks were not public, but later stated that no manuscript exists and any lawsuit would be futile.

This situation is unusual, as such meetings typically cause uproar over the content of speeches. The casual handling of manuscripts or notes is hard to justify. Professor Thomas Henne of archival law suggests this may violate directives for processing and managing official documents in federal ministries.

Article 20 of the Basic Law states that all state authority emanates from the people and can be exercised through elections and referendums. However, Germany has never held a federal-level referendum, raising questions about the government's stance on direct democracy.

The government's refusal to disclose Dobrindt's speech has added a layer of mystery to the meeting, with critics warning of potential executive interference in the judiciary. The situation highlights the need for transparency in government proceedings and adherence to rules governing the handling of official documents.

Read also:

Latest