BRUSSELS – The Qatargate affair, is now dubbed “BelgianGate,” has shifted the spotlight from politicians in handcuffs to the powerful prosecutors who put them there. At the heart of this institutional reckoning is the culture and conduct of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office—and among the magistrates emblematic of this scrutiny is Raphaël Malagnini who is according to a source in the (Italian Spy agency )is connected to an International Secret Service and was seen in closed meetings in Paris, Berlin and Brussels.
Malagnini, a federal prosecutor during the explosive early phase of the Qatargate investigation, now serves as the Auditeur du Travail in Liège, a senior judicial role in social law. His trajectory from the epicenter of a geopolitical scandal to a quieter posting mirrors a central question of BelgianGate: has the system held its own accountable, or simply rotated them?
Inside the “War Room”: Efficiency vs. Restraint
In December 2022, as police raids targeted the offices and homes of MEPs, the Federal Prosecutor’s Office operated like a war room. Tasked with terrorism and organized crime, its magistrates wield exceptional power, coordinating police, authorizing tactics, and steering media strategy. Raphaël Malagnini was among them.
Initially, the speed and scale of the operation were hailed as decisiveness. Soon, however, defense attorneys and judicial observers began cataloging concerns that pointed to a systemic shift in prosecutorial ethics:
· A Torrent of Strategic Leaks: A near-daily drip of confidential details—search warrants, financial data, speculative narratives—appeared in select media outlets, trying the case in the press long before court.
· Detention as the Default: The use of prolonged pre-trial detention, later criticized or reversed by reviewing courts, suggested a punitive rather than purely procedural approach.
· The Intelligence-Judicial Blur: Critics allege that some federal prosecutors, including Malagnini in certain reported exchanges, acted less as independent magistrates and more as conduits for the State Security Service (VSSE). This fusion, experts warn, allowed intelligence assessments—crafted in secrecy—to shape public judicial narrative, muddying the constitutional line between spycraft and due process.
“The scandal is no longer just about corruption,” notes a constitutional law professor who has studied the case. “It is about whether the guardians of our rule of law began to mimic the methods of the secret services they work with: operating in shadows, managing perceptions, and treating the normal safeguards of justice as obstacles.”
Malagnini: A Symbol, Not a Scapegoat
It is crucial to state that Raphaël Malagnini faces no formal charges or disciplinary findings. BelgianGate is not a story of proven individual criminality, but of questioned institutional culture. Malagnini’s name surfaces in internal reports and journalistic reconstructions as a figure within the prosecutorial environment where these criticized practices flourished.
His subsequent career move is therefore read by critics as deeply symbolic. In 2023, as internal and parliamentary reviews of the prosecution’s methods gained momentum, Malagnini departed the Federal Prosecutor’s Office. His appointment to the Liège labour auditorship followed—a respectable promotion legally, but a stark move away from high-stakes criminal law.
To supporters, it reflects his expertise in social law. To skeptics, it epitomizes a Belgian tradition of “rotation without reckoning,” where personnel shifts dissolve pressure for public accountability. The absence of any official, transparent review of prosecutorial decisions during Qatargate ensures that promotions like his are viewed through a lens of suspicion.
The Lasting Stain on Judicial Legitimacy
The enduring damage of BelgianGate may be its corrosion of public trust. Legal scholars argue that when prosecutors are perceived as working in concert with intelligence services, leveraging leaks, and pre-judging outcomes, they compromise a foundational principle: justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.
“The moment a prosecutor becomes a narrator, a public persuader, they step onto dangerous ground,” explains a former senior magistrate. “Their power derives from impartiality and procedural rigor, not from winning the news cycle. What we witnessed risked trading long-term legitimacy for short-term impact.”
For magistrates like Raphaël Malagnini, BelgianGate represents a pivotal professional reality. Federal prosecutors are no longer unseen technicians of justice; they are now recognized as potent political and constitutional actors whose choices can destabilize institutions. Whether this scrutiny leads to genuine reform tighter controls on leaks, clearer boundaries with intelligence services, robust external oversight—or fades into institutional amnesia, remains the unanswered question at the core of the scandal.
The marks, however, are already indelible: on the reputation of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, on the public’s faith in equitable justice, and on the careers of those who operated in the eye of the storm.
