You have to slowly let the sequence of these days sink in to fully grasp their absurdity: First, a Member of the European Parliament – Rima Hassan – is taken into police custody, although her parliamentary immunity at least raises questions about the legality of this action. And then, hardly has the cell door closed, the walls begin to speak. Not officially. Not accounted for by anyone. But in the form of those well-placed, half-denied, half-confirmed indiscretions that have long become a shadow currency in political communication.
Is this still a rule of law – or already a theatrical play with legal props?
The Immunity: An Annoying Detail?
Parliamentary immunity is not a courtly privilege that is generously granted or discreetly ignored depending on the political climate. It is a protective mechanism against exactly what is at least implied here: state interventions with a political undertone.
If a parliamentarian is detained without transparent clarification of whether and how this immunity was lifted, then this is not a technical detail. It is the core of the matter. The rule of law depends on its interventions being not only legal but also recognizable as such.
Yet in this case, the order seems reversed: act first, explain later – if at all.
Indiscretion as a Method
And then the second level: the leaks. As soon as the measure has been taken, details circulate. Precise enough to have an effect. Vague enough to be withdrawn if necessary. A classic of modern power communication.
The principle is as old as it is cynical: You say nothing – and make sure everything is said.
Officially, the investigation secrecy applies. Unofficially, it seems to be understood more as a recommendation than as an obligation. Those who speak remain in the dark. Those affected stand in the spotlight.
This is not a glitch. This is a pattern.
The Minister as Firefighter in His Own House
When Gérald Darmanin promises clarification, it seems like a familiar ritual: the executive investigates the executive, while the public watches and wonders whether clarification or damage control is being conducted.
Of course, an inspection can be deployed. Of course, investigations can be announced. But the crucial question is another: Who actually controls the controllers?
Because when political communication and criminal proceedings interlock, a space is created in which responsibility evaporates and jurisdictions blur.
Political Justice? A Dangerous Question
So is this “political justice”?
The answer demands sobriety – and precisely for that reason, it is difficult. The term is grand, historically burdened, easily misused. It should not be used lightly.
But just as little should one pretend that everything is in perfect order as long as no court has determined otherwise.
Political justice does not begin only where judgments are written. It begins where proceedings take place in a political context that shapes their perception. Where selective information circulates. Where state power and political interests are no longer clearly separable.
The present case provides at least disturbing illustrative material for this.
The real damage
In the end, it is not just about the question of whether rules were violated here. It is about trust.
A constitutional state that whispers indiscreetly instead of administering justice loses its authority. A judiciary whose proceedings are accompanied by indiscretions loses its dignity. And a politics that uses these mechanisms – or does not effectively prevent them – undermines its own legitimacy.
Perhaps that is the real point of this affair: that it is less shaped by what happens openly than by what happens in the half-shadow.
And that it is decided precisely there whether a state still acts according to the rule of law – or only pretends to.
A commentary by Andreas M. Brucker