Raed Arafat accuses military prosecutor of fabricating case in DSU fictitious hiring investigation

On Sunday, 26 July 2026, Raed Arafat, head of Romania's Department for Emergency Situations (DSU), posted on Facebook a series of accusations against the military prosecutor handling the investigation into alleged fictitious hirings at the department. Arafat stated that recent official checks had uncovered what he called extremely serious information about the creation and handling of the case.

These checks confirmed that the prosecutor artificially attracted jurisdiction in the case by invoking a fabricated factual circumstance. This finding dismantles the foundation on which the entire case was built and reveals a way of exercising the criminal investigation function incompatible with the requirements of the law.

He claimed that the investigation had been conducted in rem for over a year without notifying the persons concerned and without them being able to exercise their procedural rights. Arafat’s statement implies it had been running since before July 2025.

Surveillance and searches

Arafat described an escalation of intrusive measures. The prosecutor used the same fabricated premises to obtain authorisation for technical surveillance with the highest degree of intrusion, carried out over a period of almost six months. In a separate clarification, Arafat said the surveillance lasted approximately five months and involved GPS tracking, tailing with photographs, ambient recording, and audio-video recording. He stated that authorisations were granted successively by about five judges of rights and liberties.

We were tailed, followed, recorded by all means. GPS, tailing with photos, ambient recording, audio recording, video recording.

The prosecutor also sought court authorisation for home searches against the investigated persons. The Court of Appeal judge found these requests manifestly disproportionate and denied them. Instead of accepting the court’s decision, the prosecutor ordered the forced seizure of the mobile phones belonging to all 13 persons targeted.

Instead of accepting the legality control exercised by the court, the prosecutor ordered the forced seizure of the mobile phones belonging to all 13 targeted persons, obtaining by another route what the court had refused to approve.

The general and the jurisdiction

Arafat argued that the key to the prosecutor’s artificial jurisdiction was a false claim concerning a general. According to the DSU chief, the prosecutor told the judges that a general had signed or approved the timesheets of the doctors and nurses under investigation. In reality, the general heads a different structure from the one where those individuals worked. Timesheets were approved by the civilian medical director-general, the deputy director, or another designated person. Arafat said including the general was essential for the case to be handled by the Military Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Military Court of Appeal. Without a military officer of that rank, the case would have fallen to a lower or civilian prosecutor.

The information on which the warrants were obtained contained erroneous data, designed to show the judges that a general was involved, who signed documents and approved timesheets, which is false.

A separate case

The same military prosecutor is also investigating Arafat and 16 other persons in a distinct case concerning the smuggling of a military helicopter, with damages estimated at almost one million euros. That investigation was announced on 21 April 2026, when Arafat was placed under criminal investigation. At the time, Arafat said he had no standing in the fictitious hiring case, which was still in rem. The convergence of the two inquiries through a single prosecutor adds weight to Arafat’s procedural complaints.

Call for accountability

Arafat concluded that the sequence of actions does not represent simple errors of judgement or debatable procedural choices, but a pattern of fabricating premises to gain jurisdiction, hiding the investigation from the targets, using false claims to justify the most intrusive surveillance, and attempting to circumvent judicial review. He warned that considerable human, logistical, and financial resources had been consumed on a case built on manufactured grounds instead of being directed toward real crime fighting. The statement did not specify what further legal steps he intends to take, but he called for scrutiny of the prosecutor’s conduct.

Such a mode of action engages the question of the prosecutor’s responsibility and raises fundamental questions regarding the use of the state’s judicial resources.