Parliament lets more officials vote for themselves in elections
Thursday 3rd September 2026 on 13:45 in
Latvia
Latvia’s parliament, the Saeima, on Thursday approved urgent amendments allowing members of collegial institutions to vote in certain decisions on their own election to office and pay, LSM reported.
The amendments to the law on preventing conflicts of interest in the activities of public officials were adopted in their final reading.
The changes follow findings by the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau, known as KNAB, that candidates for leadership positions at independent institutions may have a conflict of interest if they vote for themselves.
KNAB has imposed administrative penalties on the chair and deputy chair of the National Electronic Mass Media Council, a media oversight council, over the issue. It is also examining the election of the chair and deputy chair of Latvia’s Constitutional Court, according to the TV3 programme Nekā personīga.
KNAB’s position is that candidates for these leadership positions cannot vote for themselves because such votes also concern an increase in their own salary.
The existing law states that a member of the Saeima, the Cabinet or a municipal council does not have a conflict of interest when taking part in decisions on setting their own pay or on appointing, electing or confirming themselves in office. However, it does not expressly state that members of other collegial institutions may also take part in such decisions without creating a conflict of interest.
The amendments clarify that members of the Saeima, Cabinet ministers, municipal councillors and officials of other collegial institutions may take part in decisions on their own pay and on their appointment, election or confirmation in office if such participation is provided for by law.
The amendments’ explanatory statement said the current rules did not provide sufficient legal clarity on whether members of collegial institutions could vote for their own candidacy or on setting their own pay. This could lead to differing interpretations and inconsistent application of the rules.