Nicola Gratteri, the Public Prosecutor of Naples, has sparked controversy with his remarks about the upcoming constitutional referendum on justice reforms in Italy, scheduled for March 22-23. He suggested that those voting 'No' are often law-abiding citizens committed to change in Calabria, while those in favor of 'Yes' votes include individuals under investigation, defendants, and corrupt power structures. His comments not only challenge the integrity of voters but also equate dissenting opinions with criminality, igniting discussions about the appropriateness of such statements from a public official.

Gratteri's statements have elicited strong reactions from both the political and judicial realms, as they are perceived not merely as a slip of the tongue but as heavy accusations against a significant portion of the electorate. The implications of his remarks extend beyond political discourse, raising important questions about the role of legal professionals in discourse and their responsibility in maintaining public trust. Enrico Aimi, a lay member of the CSM (Council of the Judiciary), has called for action to ensure that Gratteri's statements do not go unaddressed, emphasizing the need for an evaluation of his conduct and the potential disciplinary measures that may follow.

As this case unfolds, it highlights the delicate balance between personal opinions expressed by public officials and their impact on the public perception of justice and democracy. The looming disciplinary review by the Supreme Court underscores the gravity of the situation, as it involves key figures in Italy’s legal system and their accountability to the public. The outcome could set precedents regarding the limits of free speech among judicial actors and the expectations for neutrality in sensitive matters such as referendums and governance.