The president of the National Assembly has been indicted in the night of Wednesday to Thursday for "illegal catch of interest" in the case of Mutuelles de Bretagne. Richard Ferrand is suspected of having benefited his partner from a real estate operation while running this mutual organization based in Finistere. In the wake, the fourth character of the state said in a statement "determined to continue (his) mission" at the head of the Assembly, and this despite the judicial process it is subject. This is the first time that an incumbent President of the National Assembly has been put under examination.
To pretend to keep his position, Richard Ferrand first put on a legal aspect: the charges against him have already been dismissed for the first time. His entourage promises that nothing new is added to this new procedure, which suggests to Richard Ferrand a similar outcome, even though he had not been indicted after the first preliminary investigation .
What about the "Balladur jurisprudence?"
Richard Ferrand's relatives also put forward a series of political arguments. And in particular the "Balladur case law", which says that a minister indicted resigns. However, this principle could not apply to the president of the lower house, insofar as he is not appointed but doubly elected, both by universal suffrage at the time of the legislative elections, then by the parliamentary majority at the Perchoir. Therefore, a Speaker of the National Assembly can not be dismissed as easily as a Minister.
The sanction of opinion
Everything should therefore depend on the echo of this judicial step in the opinion. Will the leaders of the opposition seize this rebound to demand the resignation of Richard Ferrand? Taking a stand against one of the hussars of the macronie could put them at odds, the National Rally, the Republicans or France insubordinate having all had trouble with the law.
Finally, the facts reproached to Richard Ferrand could also resonate with the anger that could be expressed through the crisis of "yellow vests". Because in the Mutuelles de Bretagne case, there is a presumed constitution of a heritage, while so many French people are struggling to buy their own homes.