Seda Safarian was one of the two new justices nominated by the Armenian government and confirmed by the National Assembly in September. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian’s administration thus all but completed a purge of the Constitutional Court that began in 2020 with constitutional changes condemned by the Armenian opposition as illegal.
It emerged recently that on at least one occasion Safarian represented a private client in another Armenian court after her election. What is more, she sent documents to the Court of Appeals on behalf of the client on December 28, two weeks after formally taking over as a Constitutional Court judge.
Safarian denied any wrongdoing when she spoke to RFE/RL’s Armenian Service last month. She said that she only provided the Court of Appeals with additional documents on December 28 and that her actual appeal was filed on December 5.
A group of lawyers critical of the government insisted, however, that Safarian violated an Armenian law which bans judges from doing any other paid work. They said that the Constitutional Court must take disciplinary action or even consider ousting Safarian.
The law allows the Armenian parliament to ask the country’s highest court to consider such action. The main opposition Hayastan alliance initiated a relevant motion early this month. It was discussed by the parliament committee on legal affairs at a meeting held on Monday.
Speaking during the meeting, Hayastan’s Artsvik Minasian echoed the lawyers’ arguments and also seized upon their revelation that as of the end of January Safarian remained listed on a state registry of “individual entrepreneurs” working as lawyers.
“Being listed on the Justice Ministry’s state registry of legal entities is sufficient evidence of involvement in entrepreneurial activity,” said Minasian.
Committee members representing the ruling Civil Contract party countered that Safarian asked the State Revenue Committee to remove her from the registry late last year and earned no revenue after that. She must therefore not face any punishment, they said.
Although the parliament panel voted against the opposition motion, it will have to be debated on the parliament floor. Even so, the pro-government majority in the National Assembly is extremely unlikely to back the proposed appeal to the Constitutional Court.
Safarian also raised eyebrows when it emerged that she had her husband appointed as her driver right after taking the bench. Critics accused her of nepotism. She said that she did not break any laws.