Former Minister of Agricultural Development Makis Voridis will cross the threshold of Parliament’s parliamentary inquiry committee for OPEKEPE this morning, with his testimony eagerly anticipated as he has previously announced he will reveal the reasons why Grigoris Varras was removed from his position. “When I am called to the inquiry committee, I will explain why Mr. Varras was dismissed,” he had stated in an interview with SKAI on October 10.
“In the tender that was launched during my ministry, two companies participated, increasing competition,” Mr. Voridis had added. Indeed, when asked what exactly Mr. Varras accuses him of, Makis Voridis had said: “We need to prove that we are not elephants.” Continuing, he noted that “there were objections from Neuropublic, the company I supposedly represent” and added: “Varras’s resignation occurred in 2020 and Mr. Varras makes allegations in 2024.”
Meanwhile, in a recent briefing memo by Makis Voridis that was circulated to New Democracy MPs, prompted by Mr. Varras’s lengthy testimony to Parliament’s inquiry committee, sharp criticisms of the latter are included. It is argued, among other things, that the so-called “technical solution” was not a political choice of 2019, but a practice already applied since 2015. At the same time, it is emphasized that the “technical solution” concerns the administrative distribution of eligible public pastures, in order to ensure the activation of rights and the smooth flow of subsidies to livestock farmers.
The briefing memo sent by Makis Voridis to New Democracy parliamentary group MPs
Testimony of Grigoris Varras at the inquiry committee – OPEKEPE
1. The “agreement” on the technical solution of 2019
The “technical solution” is not a political choice of 2019, but a practice applied since 2015. Varras, in his testimony, characterized the “technical solution” of 2019 as an illegal procedure. However, reality is different: the “technical solution” concerns the administrative distribution of eligible public pastures in order to activate rights and allow livestock farmers to receive corresponding subsidies. The “technical solution” was and remains a completely legal tool, until the completion of Grazing Management Plans, allowing and ensuring the smooth flow of European aid to livestock farmers. It is absurd to consider the application of the “law” illegal, namely a ministerial decision that was applied before and after Voridis’s term.
2. The “agreement” on the technical solution of 2020
In 2020, Varras himself – as president of OPEKEPE – applied the same “technical solution” that he now characterizes as illegal, requesting that distribution be made in exactly the same way as in 2019. Moreover, he admitted shortly before leaving the organization that he proceeded with advance distribution using the “technical solution”. This raises the question: is his own application considered legal, while Voridis’s illegal? Therefore, his current criticism constitutes complete contradiction – this act completely nullifies his argumentation.
3. Varras resignation – why it was requested
The former OPEKEPE president claimed he was dismissed “at the demand of third parties” (Neuropublic, Dimitris Melas, Piraeus Bank) to prevent him from revealing “illegalities”. One reasonably wonders: what illegalities? The technical solution he himself applied? The controls for which he testified that he had not informed then-minister Makis Voridis? Furthermore, he presented no evidence whatsoever: no document, no testimony, no conversation. Varras’s resignation was requested in 2020. So he knew about the illegalities then. But he went to the prosecutor in 2024. Why? Did he tolerate illegalities for 5 years? In any case, Makis Voridis has stated he will refer extensively before the inquiry committee to the reason he requested Varras’s resignation.
4. Representative of interests
Varras implied “privileged relations” between Neuropublic and Voridis’s circle, without any evidence. Without testimony, without documents, without absolutely nothing. Only with assumptions. Additionally, Neuropublic, with an official announcement, characterized his claims as “completely false and slanderous” and pre-announced the submission of documents to the inquiry committee. Makis Voridis categorically rejected Varras’s claim that he was a “representative of interests,” emphasizing that he never acted on behalf of any private entity or company. All his decisions as Minister of Agricultural Development were made exclusively within the framework of his institutional competencies, with complete transparency, having as sole criterion legality and protection of public interest.
5. Intervention in tender terms
Varras argued there was intervention in the technical consultant tender terms. The truth is that legality control and submission of observations constitute an institutional obligation of the minister supervising the organization. If the supervising minister, within his competencies, makes observations and exercises supervision, this constitutes – according to Mr. Varras – breach of duty. If you don’t supervise and mistakes happen, you’re guilty; if you supervise, you’re still guilty. This logic simply doesn’t hold. Furthermore, Varras means the intervention was made to favor Neuropublic. This particular company had been getting the technical consultant contract for 13 years before Voridis’s term. Through international tender procedures in which it participated alone. In the tender launched during Voridis’s ministry, for the first time a second company participated and there was competition. Additionally, this tender announcement was challenged by Neuropublic and ruled legal by the courts. That is, before Voridis, there was no competitive procedure. With the “sold-out” to Neuropublic Voridis, for the first time there is competition, and those he supposedly favors turn against his announcement. The facts contradict Varras.
6. Fines and “pastures”
Varras claimed that fines of 466 million euros for which Greece was vindicated by the European Court could be converted into “pastures”. How it’s possible to convert court decisions for fines into land areas is a question to which – apparently – only he has the answer. The amounts concerned old European charges that were offset against other debts, leaving approximately 170 million euros, which ended up in the state budget. Varras’s proposal demonstrates complete ignorance.
7. The “lack of support” from Maximos
The impression was created that the government spokesperson supposedly “abandoned” Makis Voridis. The reality: the government, through its spokesperson, attributed no responsibility to Voridis. On the contrary, it was clarified that the inquiry committee is competent to investigate the case and that neither criminal nor political responsibility of Makis Voridis emerges. The OPEKEPE issue is a chronic problem. Interpretations of “abandonment” were characterized as distortion of statements and “tailoring” by the opposition.
It should be noted that during his turbulent testimony at the inquiry committee, Mr. Varras said that Makis Voridis, as Minister of Agricultural Development at the time, was the one who requested his resignation “because he wanted irregularities to continue.” However, the former minister immediately responded, speaking of “unsubstantiated” and “technically flawed” claims, while emphasizing that “if he really wanted to be honest, he would mention the real reason I asked for his resignation. We met and talked extensively. Doesn’t he remember what I told him? And, of course, none of those he invokes ever requested his removal,” notes the New Democracy MP among other things. “The rest, in full analysis, will be presented before the inquiry committee.”
The next witness to be called to testify before the inquiry committee is former Minister of Agricultural Development Spilios Livanos, followed by updating the witness list. Already from previous sessions, the opposition has unanimously requested that “Frapes,” “Hasapis,” Popi Semertzidou, Deputy Minister to the Prime Minister Giorgos Mylonakis be called -although he has made himself available to the inquiry committee- with the majority responding that all will be called in due time (e.g., Nikos Bounakis, Labros Antonopoulos, Moschos Korasidis), with the “blue” rapporteur, Makarios Lazaridis, clarifying in all tones that the witness list will be dynamic. Indeed, at last Thursday’s session, the majority rapporteur left open the possibility of even calling Minister of State Akis Skertsos.
