Priske warns dismissal of ministry chancellor must not set precedent

Estonia’s decision to dismiss Defence Ministry Chancellor Kaimo Kuusk before the new minister takes office must not become a precedent, former long-serving chancellor Marika Priske told ERR’s Vikerraadio.

Priske said the legal provision allowing a minister to dismiss a chancellor after six months of working together is intended to protect the civil service from politicisation.

Priske, who served as chancellor at the Ministry of Social Affairs and the Ministry of Economic Affairs for more than 20 years, said she had seen several situations in which a new minister entered office with the belief that the chancellor should be replaced.

Under Section 55, Subsection 2 of the Government of the Republic Act, the end of the government’s or a minister’s term is not grounds for dismissing a chancellor. In Kuusk’s case, however, the stated reason for dismissal was incompatibility with the next minister, who had not yet taken the oath of office.

“Estonian life can still surprise you,” Priske said, adding that she had not expected the provision to be used in advance in this way.

She said the rule had originally allowed chancellors to be dismissed within one year of beginning work with a minister, but the period was later shortened to six months. In her view, the provision had always been reasonable.

According to Priske, the rule was created to preserve continuity and institutional knowledge, while giving ministers and chancellors time to work together and understand the processes taking place in a ministry.

She said the provision had also helped prevent the politicisation of chancellors and the wider civil service. Without it, each new minister could clear out the ministry and appoint preferred candidates who were usually more closely connected to a political party.

“I view this with concern,” Priske said. She added that, based on the claims reported publicly, preparations appeared to be under way to appoint a new chancellor immediately for the incoming minister.

Priske said the controversy had also raised questions about the division of responsibility between ministers, chancellors, other senior officials and the heads of subordinate institutions.