Former Deputy Prime Minister and former Minister of Environment and Water Borislav Sandov has stepped forward to address developments surrounding the Petrohan case, commenting in a studio interview on whether charges have been brought against him.
The State of the Investigation and the Lack of Formal Charges
Speaking in a recent television interview, Sandov clarified his legal standing as public scrutiny intensifies over a partnership agreement signed during his ministerial tenure in Kiril Petkov’s cabinet. At the time of his media appearance, Sandov confirmed that he had received no official summons, formal correspondence from the prosecutor’s office, or any notification of an officially raised charge.
Instead, Sandov stated that he learned about allegations regarding the partnership agreement solely through public statements issued by the state prosecution. He sharply distinguished this administrative matter from the ongoing, separate investigation into the tragic deaths of six individuals found near the former Petrohan hut and Mount Okolchitsa. Emphasizing that key expert evaluations remain incomplete, Sandov declined to draw conclusions about the fatalities themselves, noting that crucial forensic data necessary to substantiate any definitive version of events is still pending.
Administrative Scrutiny Versus Public Suggestions
Sandov criticized the public handling of the case by the state prosecution, arguing that investigators began making public suggestions even while the recovery of remains was ongoing and before complete factual clarity had been established. He pointed out that a significant number of expert examinations remain outstanding.
Shifting focus to the administrative agreement at the center of the prosecution’s claims, Sandov defended the document signed between the Ministry of Environment and Water and the organization to which some of the deceased belonged, known as the National Agency for Control of Protected Territories. He asserted that if the prosecution genuinely considered the agreement illegal or outside a minister’s legal competence, authorities had ample opportunity to act much earlier. According to Sandov, a formal inquiry into the agreement was already handled by the Ministry of Interior back in 2022, during which he provided explanations before the case materials were forwarded to the prosecution.
Managing Procedural Uncertainty
Reflecting on the timeline of the inquiry, Sandov noted that two possibilities remain: either the initial preliminary file remained without definitive action or it was closed and subsequently reopened. He admitted uncertainty regarding which administrative path the prosecution took, given the absence of an official summons or documentary evidence outlining the legal basis for current actions.
With public information currently limited to media press releases rather than formal legal channels, Sandov continues to challenge the foundational premises presented by authorities regarding alleged overreach of ministerial authority, leaving the broader political and legal fallout of the Petrohan inquiry deeply contested.
