Denmark’s controversial lending minister gets the verdict
The former Minister of Lending and Integration is particularly known for his tightening of asylum and immigration policy.
The verdict in the Supreme Court case against Inger Støjberg falls on Monday. It can determine not only her own political future, but also the future of the Danish People’s Party.
Several of Støjberg’s many austerity measures received international attention, such as when she decided to seize asylum seekers’ jewelery and cash at the border.
She has at times been compared to FRP leader Sylvi Listhaug. Both have grown up on the farm, both are in their 40s, and both have used strong and controversial rhetoric in the asylum debate.
Illegal asylum instructions
The Supreme Court case was initiated on 2 September after a majority in the Folketing six months earlier voted in favor of presenting her to the Supreme Court.
The accusations are linked to an illegal instruction to separate couples who came to Denmark as asylum seekers, where one or both were minors. The instruction was given when very many Syrian refugees arrived in European countries via the Balkan route in 2016.
23 couples were divorced in this way, several of them had children together. The problem with the instruction was that it was general, while in such cases it is required that each case be dealt with separately and that individual considerations be taken into account.
She also accuses of having given incorrect and misleading information to the Folketing in the case.
– Does not bend the neck
The prosecutor has filed for four months in prison, while Støjberg, who consistently refers to the case as the «child custody case», has pleaded not guilty.
– I’m not going to apologize. I will not bend my neck either, and I will not explain away what I have done or said, because I believe that I have not done anything wrong, Støjberg said when the Supreme Court case was rounded off two weeks ago.
When the question of supreme court was discussed in the Folketing in February, she admitted that mistakes were made in the case, but she denied that it was a violation of the law.
Desired in the Danish People’s Party
Støjberg was a minister in a bourgeois government and deputy leader of the governing party Venstre when she gave the instruction.
She resigned as deputy leader in December last year, and just over a month later, her own party voted yes to the Supreme Court case. This led to Støjberg resigning from the party, and as a member of the Folketing she is without party affiliation.
However, Støjberg is sought after as leader of the crisis-stricken Danish People’s Party, and the Supreme Court case may decide whether she will take over the helm after Kristian Thulesen Dahl, when the party holds an extraordinary national meeting in January.
With Støjberg at the helm, many in the party’s openings have said that they will manage to get up again after the miserable municipal election in November. Then the party lost more than half of the votes they received in the previous municipal elections.
Behind closed doors
The Danish Supreme Court consists of 26 judges who this week have sat behind closed doors in Copenhagen to decide whether Støjberg should be acquitted or sentenced to up to years in prison. 13 of them are Supreme Court judges, while the other 12 are politically appointed.
The deliberations take place in such a way that the 26 judges in turn get the floor and say what they think about the case. It is free for everyone to change their mind along the way and be convinced by the arguments of others. First out is a Supreme Court judge, then you get one of the political statements by the judges the floor.
– The first voter comes with his position. But all of them are people – both Supreme Court judges and the elected representatives – who are quite strong people, who have their opinions. So I am quite convinced that you of course listen to each other and to good remarks and comments that come during the voting process, says head of the Supreme Court, Thomas Rørdam, to the policy.
Refs in report
During the last 100 years, there has been only one other Supreme Court case in Denmark, and the case is therefore considered historic.
Last year, a commission of inquiry concluded that Støjberg’s order was “misleading”, “misleading” and “clearly illegal”. The report stated that she gave the order even though she was warned that it was illegal. But the commission found no evidence that she gave the agency a direct order to administer in violation of the law.
The report was the reason why a majority in the Folketing voted in favor of the Supreme Court case. But Rørdam has not read the report. He has started with blank sheets and wanted to be influenced by what others have come up with in the past.
The verdict in the case falls on Monday at 1 p.m.
(© NTB)