Greece’s parliamentary inquiry into the Tempi train disaster has become a focal point of political controversy, with opposition parties accusing the government of orchestrating a cover-up.
The inquiry committee is set to reconvene on Friday, March 28, when Christos Triantopoulos, a former deputy minister, is expected to testify regarding his handling of the tragedy. However, the investigation has been overshadowed by procedural disputes, walkouts by opposition parties, and accusations that the government is attempting to control the narrative.
The decision to postpone Triantopoulos’s testimony arose from a procedural issue. Under Greek law, a parliamentary summons must be delivered by a court bailiff, a process that could not be completed in time for the originally scheduled session. This delay has only intensified tensions, with opposition leaders alleging that the inquiry is being manipulated to protect government officials from deeper scrutiny.
The most dramatic moment so far came when opposition parties—excluding Plefsi Eleftherias and Spartiates—walked out of the committee session before it began, refusing to lend legitimacy to what they described as a «sham process». Despite their absence, the ruling New Democracy party, which holds a parliamentary majority, went ahead with the vote, deciding the committee’s next steps unilaterally. The inquiry will proceed with Triantopoulos’s testimony, but it is expected to conclude shortly thereafter without hearing additional witnesses or requesting further documentation.
Opposition leaders have strongly condemned this approach. PASOK MP Milena Apostolaki argued that the sequence of testimonies violates fundamental legal principles, as the accused is supposed to testify last, following the collection of witness statements. She accused the government of a deliberate cover-up and suggested that the inquiry was being shaped to protect key political figures rather than establish the truth.
SYRIZA has gone even further, describing the inquiry as a «poorly orchestrated political theater» designed to create the appearance of legitimacy while preventing a full investigation. The party has called for the entire case file to be made available and insists that Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis should testify, given that Triantopoulos was operating under his authority. SYRIZA officials argue that the government’s reluctance to allow further testimonies raises serious questions about its commitment to transparency and accountability.
Adding to the tensions, relatives of the Tempi disaster victims have formally requested that the case be transferred to the regular judicial system, rather than being handled by a parliamentary committee. In a legal notice sent to the inquiry’s chairman, they stated that all individuals found responsible should face prosecution under standard legal procedures rather than through special parliamentary courts designed for government officials. Their demand reflects a growing frustration among the victims' families, who believe that political maneuvering is interfering with the pursuit of justice.
The government’s response has been firm. New Democracy leaders have dismissed the opposition’s claims, arguing that the inquiry is proceeding in accordance with parliamentary rules. In a statement, the party challenged PASOK’s stance, asking whether the party truly supported sending Triantopoulos to trial in a regular court or was merely engaging in political posturing. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Mitsotakis’s administration has sought to frame the investigation as a necessary step toward accountability, despite the opposition’s accusations of interference.
Under Greek parliamentary procedures, if the inquiry committee votes in favor of prosecution, the case will be referred to the plenary session of Parliament, where lawmakers will decide whether to move forward with legal action. If approved, the case will be handed over to a five-member judicial council, which will examine the allegations against Triantopoulos. However, given the government’s majority, critics fear that the parliamentary process is being used to control the scope of the investigation rather than ensure a fair legal outcome.
