Suspicion of perjury: Frauke Petry will lose immunity

The Immunity Committee of the Saxon parliament recommends that the immunity of the AFD-chairman Frauke Petry. This paved the way for an indictment or an order of punishment should be free soon.

The way for an indictment Frauke Petry expected to open: On Thursday, the immunity committee of the Saxon Parliament approved a request of prosecutors in Dresden and recommended the lifting of the immunity of the AFD-chairman. If over the next seven days, no Member object to the decision, the immunity automatically be deemed revoked. With a contradiction, however, is hard to be expected, since even the two AFD deputies in the Committee on the application approved. “We have nothing to hide,” said Uwe Wurlitzer, who represents the state party as general secretary and the parliamentary group as a parliamentary secretary and sits even in the Immunity Committee. “We are one hundred percent sure that the charges against Frauke Petry are baseless.”

The prosecution Dresden already determined half years against Petry. In June, the evidence of a criminal offense seemed so condensed to have that authority applied to lift their immunity. She accuses the party leader claims to have provided false information under the scrutiny committee of the Saxon Parliament under oath – an offense punishable by at least one year in prison. Specifically, it’s about Petry’s statement in November 2015. The Committee then examined including the appeal by the AFD-politician and Petry-opponent Arvid Samtleben, which the party had just before the state election in August 2014 again removed from its electoral list. Samtleben had a really hopeless place with 14th place but would become a deputy because of the surprising cutting off the party. Since then Samtleben draws by claiming the country, the AFD have deleted it because of a failure to grant loan for the state elections again from the list.

What did and signed Petry?

However, this suspicion, which could in extreme cases, a new election in Saxony can lead, the election review committee looked at as unfounded, as other AFD members had granted a loan and were still left on the list. Petry himself had always stressed that Samtleben has not been canceled because of the money as a candidate, but because he had been inactive and unreliable and had been voted out by members of his own district association.

Power struggle in the AFD: Meuthen announces candidacy fight against Petry at

However, during questioning by the committee on details of the loan itself Petry ran into trouble. So she said she only found out about a year after the election, who had effectively granted a loan. Furthermore, they stated that they have not signed any loan contracts themselves. Finally, they said, to be able to remember a deadline by which the loan had to be paid.

The then AFD-treasurer Carsten Hütter made on these issues in his interview completely different information: For example, Petry and Wurlitzer had always asked about the payments, moreover, they would always have all three – that Petry, Hütter, and Wurlitzer – sign any loan agreements in which in turn, was also a fixed payment period.

Flippant and cheeky

Even AFD members after rolling his eyes; Petry did not take the survey seriously and not prepared for it, it said. In addition, they have sometimes a flippant and cheeky response to demands of the deputies. For the member of parliament, André Scholl Bach (Left Party) in any case the description Hütter sounded more plausible than that of Petry, which is why he also criminal charges against AFD chief on suspicion of perjury. not, however, entirely voluntary – while the prosecutor’s office stopped its investigation of Hütter due to lack of suspicion, she stayed with Petry it. Last year she had put the case already also to the side, but had been stopped by the top prosecutor for the continuation of the process.

For the AFD, too, is an indication that the allegations nothing is off. Also, Petry himself had, therefore, called for a lifting their immunity in order to rebut the charges against them in one process. However, for Petry the conflict situation is difficult: Should the prosecutor bring charges before the federal election, the state and federal chairman could come into their party under pressure. Secretary Wurlitzer holds true for possible but sees this as the lesser evil. “The damage caused by the procedure is but already there,” says Wurlitzer. Also, the waiver of immunity was due to the election campaign. If there is an indictment, he already did not expect a result before the election. “In this respect, we may not release, but very confident.”