Saeima Deputy Punished for Speaking Russian: TikTok Video Resulted in Warning

The parliamentarian did not acknowledge any violation and stated that at the time of the video’s publication, he had not yet taken the parliamentary oath. However, the majority of members of the parliamentary commission considered his actions a breach of parliamentary ethics. On Wednesday, November 11, the Saeima Commission on Mandates, Ethics, and Statements decided to issue a written warning to Deputy Andrey Pahors (SV/AJ) for communicating in Russian from the parliamentary session hall, reports the LETA agency. The commission's decision will be announced at a Saeima meeting and published in the official publication *Latvijas Vēstnesis*. ## What Happened? On the first working day of the 15th Saeima, Andrey Pahors published a TikTok video in which he spoke in Russian about the agenda of the first parliamentary meeting. On the same day, he, along with other deputies, took the solemn oath and received parliamentary powers. Later, the video disappeared from the politician's account, but copies continued to spread on social media. The Speaker of the Saeima, Edvards Smiltens, and other members of the parliamentary presidium made a statement about a possible breach of parliamentary ethics. ## Why Did Speaking Russian Lead to Proceedings? The Deputy Speaker of the Saeima, Inara Murniece, reminded that the status of the Latvian language in the work of the parliament is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of Latvia. Moreover, the importance of the state language is emphasized in the solemn promise of a deputy. Murniece also referred to changes in the Saeima regulations, which require deputies to use the state language when communicating with each other and with the public in parliamentary premises. According to her, parliamentarians should not engage in actions that could undermine the significance of the Latvian language. ## The Deputy Did Not Acknowledge Any Violation Andrey Pahors rejected the presidium's claims and stated that there were no grounds for initiating an ethics violation case. He provided several arguments. Firstly, in his opinion, the presidium of the Saeima had no right to submit such a statement, as the regulations provide this possibility for individual deputies, deputy groups, and factions. Secondly, the politician contested the legality of the issue being considered by the temporary commission. Finally, Pahors emphasized that at the time of the video’s publication, he was not yet a full-fledged deputy, as he had not had the chance to take the solemn oath. The parliamentarian also accused the presidium of misleading the public and the media without understanding the circumstances of the case. According to Pahors, he has never questioned the significance of the Latvian language and has always treated it with respect. ## Saeima Lawyers Disagreed with His Arguments The head of the Saeima Legal Bureau, Dina Meistere, rejected the deputy's arguments. She explained that members of the presidium are simultaneously deputies of the parliament and therefore have the right to initiate the consideration of an ethics violation issue. Meistere also pointed out that the temporary commission operates until a permanent one is formed and has the necessary powers to assess the behavior of deputies. Thus, the commission saw no legal obstacles to considering the case. ## There Were Even Proposals to Exclude Him from the Meeting During the discussion, deputy Atis Švinka expressed regret that he did not hear any apologies or acknowledgment of a mistake from Pahors. According to Švinka, instead, the parliamentarian focused on legal arguments and the circumstances of the video’s publication. Inara Murniece supported this assessment and proposed a stricter punishment — to exclude Pahors from participating in one Saeima meeting. However, there was no consensus among the commission members regarding the measure of punishment. Švinka proposed a written warning, Dāna Šlesere advocated for an oral warning, while Nauris Puntulis supported the written warning option. Edmunds Jurevics suggested not only issuing a written warning but also announcing it at the Saeima meeting and publishing the commission's decision in the official publication. This option ultimately received the support of the majority. ## How Did the Deputies Vote? Five members of the commission voted for initiating a case of ethics violation: Inga Priede, Dāna Šlesere, Atis Švinka, Nauris Puntulis, and Edmunds Jurevics. Alexey Ignatiev (SV/AJ) opposed, suggesting waiting for the formation of a permanent commission of 12 members. When voting on the question of whether a violation occurred, the same five deputies supported the corresponding decision, while Ignatiev abstained. As a result, Andrey Pahors received a written warning. The commission did not support a stricter punishment of exclusion from one Saeima meeting.