The former Riga lawmaker left the Progressives party after allegations involving a minor became public
The story of Mārtiņš Eņģelis, a former Riga City Council member from the Progressives party, has gained new details.
According to reports cited in the article, the former lawmaker faced allegations involving a minor. He later said that he had “repented” and was “ready to accept criticism and condemnation.”
The article argues that the public explanation for his departure changed over time. At first, Eņģelis cited emotional burnout. Later, the Progressives said that he had resigned his mandate at the party’s request after they received reports about inappropriate behavior.
First Came the “Burnout” Explanation
The official explanation for Eņģelis’s departure from the Riga City Council initially focused on emotional burnout.
He said that prolonged burnout prevented him from giving his work in the Riga municipality the attention it required. He also said that his condition affected his ability to concentrate and make decisions.
At the time, Eņģelis wrote on social media:
“I have now reached the point where, due to the accumulation of all the above-mentioned reasons, I began to make unnecessary careless mistakes and make inappropriate and unprofessional decisions.”
He also said that he needed to take responsibility for his own health and the emotional well-being of others.
He wrote that this responsibility should be addressed “not in the council chamber, but in a psychotherapist’s office.”
The article argues that this explanation later proved incomplete. According to reports cited by the author, the case involved an alleged sexual relationship with a minor from a children’s institution.
The Allegations Became Public After His Departure
The Progressives later said that Eņģelis had actually resigned his mandate at the party’s request.
The party said it had received information about his inappropriate behavior. After Eņģelis left the Riga City Council and the party, the Progressives contacted the police.
Media reports cited in the article say that Eņģelis had an intimate relationship with an underage orphan who later approached the Riga Orphans’ Court.
The article points to a sequence of events. First, the party received information about alleged inappropriate behavior. Then Eņģelis was asked to leave. An anonymous letter subsequently appeared, and the Orphans’ Court became involved.
Only after these events did Eņģelis publicly speak about “repentance.”
Eņģelis Calls His Conduct “Unprofessional” and “Unethical”
Eņģelis has said on social media that the relationship with the minor was allegedly “consensual.”
The article challenges this description and questions how consent can be discussed in a case involving a minor.
Eņģelis also said:
“I realize that I acted unprofessionally and unethically. I should have dealt with the situation in time and ended it. I am ready to accept criticism and condemnation.”
The article focuses heavily on these words.
It notes that Eņģelis did not describe his actions as a crime. Instead, he referred to his conduct as “unprofessional” and “unethical.”
The author argues that such language normally describes professional mistakes or violations of workplace standards. The article questions whether those terms are appropriate when allegations involve sexual relations with a minor.
Questions Remain About the Progressives Party
The article also raises questions about the response of the Progressives party.
Why, the author asks, did the party not immediately contact the police after receiving information about an alleged relationship between its lawmaker and a minor from a children’s institution?
Why was Eņģelis initially allowed to leave with an explanation based on burnout?
The article also questions why the public statement about “repentance” appeared only after the case became known to the media and the minor approached the court.
Another question concerns Eņģelis’s own description of his conduct. The article asks why he spoke about “unprofessionalism” rather than explicitly describing the alleged conduct as a crime.
At present, the article says, these questions remain unanswered.
On one side is a former lawmaker who says he is “ready to accept criticism and condemnation.” On the other is a minor who approached the court.
The author argues that the difference between their positions makes the case especially important. The article concludes that the circumstances should be discussed directly rather than hidden behind convenient explanations.
