class=”sc-97fd9fa8-0 jNFKxv”>
Is Geneva part of Switzerland? But of course! But certain events in the far west of the country do not seem to fit the picture of our rule of law:
In 2019, the Genevan Attorney General Olivier Jornot (53) had a policeman arrested early in the morning, tied up and stripped naked. The man can’t talk to his lawyer forever. And this despite the fact that he is not a criminal. And: Although it appears during the interrogation day that the man is hardly guilty of breaking official secrets.
In this wild story, currently making headlines in French-speaking Switzerland, the alleged perpetrator increasingly appears as a victim. It is about a politician named Simon Brandt, who was considered shy and reserved and who worked for the police’s strategic analysis service at the time.
Brandt is accused of leaking confidential documents to the press about huge expense reports from some employees of the city of Geneva. An absurd story! All the more so since Brandt was acquitted in December 2021 by the Geneva police court of suspected violation of professional secrecy.
“Mistakes with far-reaching consequences”
Blick tried to shed light on the “Simon Brandt” file. During his investigation, Blick came across previously unpublished documents showing that something is wrong with the affair. This is also confirmed by a report from the Audit Committee (GPK) of the Geneva Grand Council. This report, published Tuesday, identifies several flaws in the “hasty charges” against Brandt. These mistakes are said to have had “dramatic consequences for Brandt’s political career and health”.
In particular, the report sharply criticizes the criminal investigation department, Attorney General Jornot and the responsible State Councilor Mauro Poggia (63, MCG). As a result of the affair, new sound recordings will be made during house searches and interrogations.
Friday the 13th.
But let’s start at the beginning: let’s go back to Friday, December 13, 2019. Right now, the “Maudet affair” is boiling, which is being vigorously investigated by Attorney General Jornot. Pierre Maudet (45), Councilor of State of Geneva and former candidate of the Federal Council of the FDP, has been criticized for a luxury trip to Abu Dhabi in 2015, to which he was invited. It concerns the suspicion of misusing the office. The then FDP president of Switzerland, Petra Gössi (47), had asked Maudet to resign. Ten months later, the Genevan FDP will expel him from the party.
In Geneva, it has long been known that Maudet and Jornot share an intimate enmity. On December 13, 2019, Simon Brandt, a close confidant of Maudet, was stopped by a dozen officers.
The then 35-year-old, gangly general councilor Brandt was put in a cell without daylight. He was handcuffed and thoroughly searched. Officially, he is accused of telling the press that employees of the city of Geneva surrendered to charges.
It was about Maudet
In reality, Simon Brandt is mainly asked about things related to Maudet during the interrogation. According to Blick’s research, one of the first questions is whether he accompanied Maudet to Abu Dhabi.
This information and the following information come from another interrogation, namely that of police corporal C., who interrogated Simon Brandt. The interrogation of C. – the protocol of which Blick is available – took place on June 11, 2021, after the FDP politician Brandt filed a complaint against Sergeant C. for abuse of office.
“authorized to use force”
The interrogation of C. by the Public Prosecution Service reveals a number of problematic elements. The police officer claims he received conflicting orders about whether or not to handcuff the suspect Brandt. Why a full search? The petty officer refers to the hierarchy. He had to conduct a security investigation, but also a search for evidence. “According to the order I received,” the document says.
In fact, Attorney General Jornot was not squeamish about the warrant that led to Brandt’s arrest on Friday the 13th. At the end of the document it can be read that the police have “the express authority to use force”. In particular, it is ordered that “the person (…) shall be searched both on the surface of the body and in openings and cavities which can be examined without tools”. And it also says that the presence of a lawyer during the interrogation of the suspect is not allowed.
traces faded
Back to the questioning of police officer C. According to the file, he explains that a Whatsapp group has been set up to carry out the operation “Cumulus” – although current guidelines prohibit police officers from using Whatsapp for official purposes. When former First Prosecutor Stéphane Grodecki asked police officer C. why there were no traces of this Whatsapp group on his phone, he simply replied that it was.
Even more disturbing, according to Corporal C.’s transcript, Brandt’s interrogation of the leaks for which he is believed to be responsible begins at 4:40 p.m. That same day at 3:11 p.m., the captain responsible for the IT security of the police sent an e-mail to C., who has Blick.
In this email, Brandt is expressly acquitted of being the perpetrator of the leaks. It is demonstrable that Brandt had not logged in to the software that contained the data on the expense claims. Strangely enough, this important email is not included in the file that prosecutors have on Brandt. So Brandt will be questioned that day.
“Seen Too Late”
It is surprising that Brandt was nevertheless interrogated and especially dealt with so harshly. Asked by the judicial authorities of Geneva about Simon Brandt’s complaint, Sergeant C. motivated himself as follows on the day of the interrogation: After the house searches on December 13, 2019, he found out that Simon Brandt had not logged into the software. “I received an email about this.” But he didn’t see this email until after the search. And: “We have followed the instructions of the prosecutor.”
The most mysterious aspect of Brandt’s arrest is the fate of his cell phone. As usual in such cases, the police wanted to use the mobile phone to search for evidence of leaks to the media and exchanges with Pierre Maudet. Normally, the confiscation of a telephone by the police takes place within the framework of a regulated procedure. But here the corporal admits he doesn’t know why he “didn’t put the device in flight mode,” even though evidence policy requires it.
A big problem: because all messenger chats between Maudet and Brandt disappear on various platforms, including Signal. They were removed on December 15 – while the phone was still with the police. Has the phone been tampered with, and if so, for what purpose? Blick’s research is revealing more and more questions.
Media was informed
Simon Brandt was arrested on this now famous Friday, December 13, 2019, around 7 a.m. However, the politician had to wait until 4:15 p.m. before he could speak to his lawyer. And only at 11 p.m. that same day he was allowed to leave the police station. After his release, Simon Brandt discovered that his interrogation was the media attraction of the evening – and that elements of this press interrogation had been leaked.
That made a lasting impression on Simon Brandt. And it had psychological consequences for him, as evidenced by various medical certificates – and as the GPK report mentioned at the beginning also mentions. Brandt’s political career and private relationships took a serious blow.
In this case, everything is questionable
The lawsuit that the FDP politician had brought against the NCO and subsequently extended to Attorney General Jornot, had been initiated by the public prosecutor’s office. From the public prosecutor’s office that reports to Olivier Jornot himself. Brandt, on the other hand, filed two appeals in federal court, which are still pending today.
In this case, everything is questionable: from the explicit permission to use force to the prohibition to call a lawyer – which is written in black and white in the order to present Jornot with which Brandt was brought in for questioning.
As the Complaints Committee on Criminal Matters found in its judgment of 24 August 2021, the principle of proportionality was violated in the Simon Brandt case – in other words: the authorities have completely overreacted with their working methods. Brandt received about 1,000 francs in compensation for this.
Brandt hopes for justice
Given the enmity between Attorney General Olivier Jornot and former State Councilor Pierre Maudet, the Brandt case gives the impression of a kind of collateral damage from the “Maudet affair,” according to research by Blick.
Faced with Blick’s investigation, the prosecutor’s office and Attorney General Jornot declined to comment. They referred to ongoing procedures. Simon Brandt, who says he is still affected by the events of December 2019, hopes “that justice will be done this time”.
Source:Blick
I am Liam Livingstone and I work in a news website. My main job is to write articles for the 24 Instant News. My specialty is covering politics and current affairs, which I’m passionate about. I have worked in this field for more than 5 years now and it’s been an amazing journey. With each passing day, my knowledge increases as well as my experience of the world we live in today.
