The commission’s much-debated findings were approved by 64 votes in favour, 42 votes against and 10 abstentions.
When the findings were considered on Tuesday, coalition MPs urged to vote in favour, but there was no unanimous agreement among the ranks of the majority.
According to Conservative MP Jurgis Razma, adoption of the findings brings into question the responsibility of VSD Director Darius Jauniškis.
The ad hoc commission had submitted its conclusions in March. It stated that VSD Director Jauniškis assisted then presidential candidate Nausėda by having intelligence information collected about people from his environment. MPs believe that information about people who should be screened might have been relayed by Nausėda himself or by another person on his behalf. It is also thought that data gathered by the VSD might have been disclosed personally to Nausėda.
The president refused to testify to the ad hoc commission. Therefore, the latter argued that this impeded parliament from carrying out its duties and was a violation of the Constitution and a breach of oath to follow the law.
Moreover, the commission thinks that Director of the Special Investigation Department (STT) Linas Pernavas abused office by refusing to supply criminal intelligence data to parliament and misleading MPs.
It transpired during the parliamentary probe that the VSD might have examined potential violations concerning funding of Nausėda’s 2019 election campaign.
The committee also discovered that members of Nausėda’s election campaign in 2018-2019 maintained ties with representatives of Belarusian fertiliser business, used to meet with them and they would be invited to events at the Presidential Palace following Nausėda’s election. The findings state that high-ranking officials from the Office of the President had concealed this. As a result, the commission intends to address prosecutors.
In addition, the commission also assessed violations concerning disclosure of the identity of VSD whistleblower Tomas Gailius. It concluded that VSD Director Jauniškis is directly responsible for this.
MPs suggested enhancing parliamentary control of the VSD and the STT, as well as to review regulations of parliamentary control.
The findings were criticised by Nausėda, who described the situation as an attempt to discredit the state and its constitutional principles. STT Director Pernavas rejected them as well, stressing that he was actively cooperating with parliament, whereas demands to disclose criminal intelligence data might contradict the Constitution. The VSD declared that parliament’s probe was based on biased and tendentiously selected information.
A group of opposition MPs appealed to the Constitutional Court asking it to evaluate the lawfulness of the ad hoc commission.
The VSD whistleblower’s story first attracted parliament’s attention in 2019. However, the Seimas Committee on National Security and Defence concluded at the time that the agency acted within its competence.
Parliament returned to the issue after investigative journalists Dovydas Pancerovas and Birutė Davidonytė published the book A Whistleblower and the President, which revealed a potentially unlawful collection of information about private citizens by the VSD during the 2019 presidential election campaign. It later transpired that VSD employee Tomas Gailius was the whistleblower.