The public prosecutors’ blunders, the smear campaign against Minetti. All the messes caused by the ‘No’ campaign

Call it the ‘No’ curse if you like. Not superstition, mind you, just facts, just stories, just episodes, just small acts of revenge, however fleeting. Next Saturday will mark exactly five months since the triumphant victory of the ‘No’ vote in the constitutional referendum. It was 23 March, when Italy – eager to send a message to Melonism, Trumpism, the right-wing government, the constitutional revisionists and the assault on the judiciary, as has been said – found its outlet. The ‘No’ campaigners, in a state of euphoria, won with 53 per cent. The ‘Yes’ campaigners, in despair – including ourselves – lost with 47 per cent. The opposition is jubilant and already sees the path to Palazzo Chigi laid bare. In the public prosecutor’s offices, toasts are being raised and new opportunities are already being glimpsed to strengthen the already robust powers of public prosecutors. Among the advocates of a strict application of the law, celebrations are underway and new opportunities are already being envisaged to prevent the culture of suspicion from giving way to the culture of safeguards.

The ‘No’ vote in the referendum has, of course, changed many things for the government. It has prompted Meloni & Co. to review part of their structure, including the sacking of Delmastro and Santanchè. It has forced the government to reassess certain balances, including its relations with Donald Trump. It has led the majority to doubt its own potential and its chances of winning the next election, which is why the centre-right felt compelled to change the electoral law – or at least to try to do so. But, surprisingly, those who seem to have paid the heaviest price for the consequences of the ‘No’ victory are, by a strange twist of fate, precisely those who most vigorously spearheaded the diverse ‘No’ campaign against the justice reform. Point number one: the opposition. The opposition, as you may have noticed, the very moment after uniting to add fuel to the ‘No’ campaign, suddenly fell apart; it began to agonise, to split over important issues, to argue, to tell each other to get lost and to show fear regarding the future: what if the ‘No’ vote doesn’t win? Panic. Names are being pulled out of a hat left, right and centre; should there be primaries or not? Futile attempts to find new faces; scouting within the coalitions; fear of failure – everywhere except within the PD’s leadership.

Point number two: Nicola Gratteri. The man who, more than any other, has fought to prove that it is not true that public prosecutors have too much power, that it is not true that there are no checks and balances on the power of the public prosecutor’s offices, and that it is not true that those magistrates who campaigned for a ‘No’ vote simply wanted to bear less responsibility for the consequences of their mistakes – must once again face up to reality. In recent months, following the referendum, two major investigations coordinated by Nicola Gratteri whilst he was head of the Catanzaro Anti-Mafia Directorate (DDA) have reached their conclusion. The first, “Maestrale-Olimpo-Imperium”, launched in the Vibonese area in 2023, uncovered not only the criminal clans but also a vast “grey area” of entrepreneurs, professionals, civil servants and public officials believed to be linked to the ‘Ndrangheta. On 1 July 2026, the first-instance trial concluded with more than half of the defendants acquitted. There were 79 convictions, yes, but also 99 acquittals and 3 cases dismissed due to the statute of limitations. The second investigation led by Gratteri to reach its conclusion in recent months is “Black Wood”, a 2022 operation targeting the Cutro biomass power station. The prosecution alleged mafia infiltration of the timber supply chain and the illegal use of waste. Thirty-one precautionary measures were ordered: some businesspeople spent months alternating between prison and house arrest. On 23 July 2026, the first-instance verdict was handed down. There were only eight convictions. There were 53 acquittals. The public prosecutors’ full powers remain in place; accountability will come sooner or later.

The third front, perhaps the most interesting, is that of the investigations, built on moralising, which present the bill to the party of quick arrests and the international community of public shaming. The Ranucci case – in which the moraliser has himself been brought to heel by his explosive and embarrassing friendships, which have led him in recent weeks to condemn the very culture of suspicion that he himself had fuelled for years through the methods of his programme “Report” – is merely the latest piece in a larger mosaic. Within this mosaic lie other stories. There is the story of the investigations into town planning in Milan, which the moralising press had been milking for a long time, but which must now face up to reality. On 16 June, in the first trial to reach a verdict – the one concerning Torre Milano – all eight defendants were acquitted of the charges of building regulations offences and unauthorised land parcelling; and on 1 July, the Court of Auditors also acquitted the three municipal officials accused of causing financial loss to the state in relation to the Park Towers: no serious misconduct was found. On 4 June, another blow for the ‘quick-to-arrest’ camp: a judge – naturally criticised by those keen to pillory others – dismissed yet another line of inquiry into Dell’Utri and Berlusconi concerning the alleged hidden masterminds behind the 1993 bombings, ruling that there was a lack of concrete evidence regarding direct links with the Cosa Nostra in relation to that specific allegation.

To all this, of course, must be added the utter farce played out by the party so quick to pillory others over the case of Nicole Minetti’s pardon – a pardon with which the judicial media circus attempted to sling mud even at the Quirinale, only to be subjected to massive doses of ridicule in return: the pardon procedure was found to be correct; the pardon was not revoked; the famous ‘repentant’ from the Cipriani case—on whom the arguments of those claiming the pardon was unlawful were based—has revised all her positions; the adoption was in order; the child’s serious illness was confirmed; and the case with which the party of public shaming sought to tarnish the reputation of the Head of State, and the credibility of the Venice Juvenile Court and the offices of the Minister of Justice, has turned into a counter-investigation into those spreading the mudslinging, complete with a difficult civil case to face in New York, where the newspaper that beat the drum against Cipriani, Minetti and the Quirinale will have to face the American justice system, which who knows how it will assess the unsubstantiated links drawn by "Il Fatto Quotidiano" between the Cipriani family and the Epstein family. The Ranucci case, after all, with its self-righteous moralisers who in some instances even turn out to be defenders of due process after having done everything in their power to turn due process into a synonym for presumption of innocence, is merely the latest piece in an intriguing mosaic. It will in no way allow us, the disconsolate widows of judicial reform, to be compensated for the disappointment of the ‘No’ victory five months ago, but it certainly lies before us, offering an intriguing spectacle. A mind-blowing divine retribution that will not have the power to console us for what happened in March, but which is there to remind us of three important truths. It reminds the opposition that an algorithm – or simply standing united against someone – is not enough to constitute an alternative. It reminds the judiciary that a ‘No’ victory in the referendum is not enough to avoid reflecting on the limits of a prosecutor’s irresponsibility. It reminds the ‘pillory’ party that having a fair justice system – with less of a culture of suspicion, fewer investigations turned into verdicts, and less mudslinging thrown about – is not an issue tied to those who wish to take the side of the accused: it is an issue concerning the common good, as one might say, which the ‘No’ victory in the constitutional referendum has made more necessary than ever. It is called a fair trial, it is called the rule of law, it is called a culture of safeguards. The curse of the ‘No’ vote, much like the curse of Troy and Zeus that forced Odysseus to reflect on the methods of his victory, is there to remind us of a simple and necessary fact: the difference between a democracy based fundamentally on emotions and one based simply on reality.