The Latvian Parliament is seeking clarity regarding the situation at the Ombudsman’s Office, particularly the repeated and unexplained absences of Ombudsman Juris Jansons.
According to Saeima Speaker Daiga Mieriņa’s advisor Paula Salmiņa, the Speaker and the Saeima Presidium are scheduled to meet today with Deputy Ombudsman Ineta Piļāne to discuss the matter.
The Presidium has also sent an official letter to relevant institutions requesting detailed information to determine the appropriate course of action, due to the Ombudsman repeated failure to appear before the Saeima to report on time.
Mieriņa emphasized that Jansons’ prolonged absence is hindering the full performance of the Ombudsman’s Office,
as certain statutory responsibilities—such as presenting the annual report to the Saeima—can only be carried out by the ombudsman personally.
This Thursday, the Saeima postponed hearing Jansons’ annual report after being informed that he was on sick leave. However, his ongoing failure to appear—this being not the first instance—has sparked discontent among MPs. Several parliamentary factions see his absences as a sign of disrespect, especially given the ombudsman’s crucial role in safeguarding human rights and promoting good governance.
Some lawmakers are now openly discussing the possibility of removing Jansons from office, though they acknowledge that such a process would be complex. Latvian labour law prohibits the dismissal of an individual who is officially on medical leave.
MP Jana Simanovska (Progressives) expressed concern about the situation, stating that Jansons’ conduct raises critical red flags: “If the person does not show up, we cannot have the necessary discussions. This cannot go on. Political action is needed.”
The Ombudsman’s Office confirmed that Jansons has been on sick leave since last week, with no indication of when he might return.
His current term ends in March 2026.
The report Jansons was due to present highlights key human rights issues from the past year, particularly those affecting children—such as violence in schools, access to healthcare, education quality, and family environment. It points to deficiencies in child protection systems and emphasizes the need for individualized services, especially for children with special needs. Other topics include child maintenance obligations, inheritance rights, and grandparental responsibility.
The report also tackles discrimination—on grounds of language, citizenship, gender, and religion—and notes the rising risk posed by artificial intelligence to equality and fairness, underlining the need for human oversight and accurate data. The role of the media in shaping perceptions of discrimination is also analysed.
On good governance, the report evaluates state and municipal accountability, transparency, and civic engagement—highlighting both commendable practices and cases of legal noncompliance or bureaucratic delays. It also includes research findings, international collaboration, and public education initiatives.
Looking ahead, the report outlines 2025 priorities, which include personal and public security, the rights of children and people with disabilities, stronger governance, and the reduction of discrimination.
With growing dissatisfaction among lawmakers and no clear timeline for Jansons’ return, pressure is mounting for transparency and accountability at one of Latvia’s most important human rights institutions.