Mattarella Demands Urgent Answers on the Minetti Pardon After Claims of False Documents
The presidential pardon granted to Nicole Minetti in February is unravelling into a full institutional crisis. On Monday 27 April, the Quirinale took the highly unusual step of writing to Justice Minister Carlo Nordio to demand urgent clarification after a series of investigative articles by Il Fatto Quotidiano raised serious doubts about the accuracy of the documents on which the pardon was based.
The letter from the Quirinale’s press office states: “In reference to the decree granting a pardon to Ms Minetti, adopted by the President of the Republic on the favourable proposal of the Minister of Justice on 18 February 2026, and in light of subsequent press reports regarding the supposed falsity of the elements presented in the clemency application, I request that the necessary information be urgently obtained to establish the validity of what has been reported by a press outlet.”
The Ministry of Justice responded within the hour, announcing it had opened an internal inquiry and was working with the Milan Court of Appeal’s prosecutor general, from which the favourable non-binding opinion had come. An initial outcome was expected within 24 hours.
Who Is Nicole Minetti and Why Was She Pardoned
Minetti, 41, is a former Lombardy regional councillor closely associated with Silvio Berlusconi. She was convicted and sentenced to three years and eleven months in prison, for facilitating prostitution in the Ruby case and for embezzlement in the Rimborsopoli expense scandal. The pardon was granted on humanitarian grounds: her lawyers had argued she needed to care for a seriously ill minor child.
The case appeared straightforward at the time of the grant. It has since become considerably less so.
What Il Fatto Quotidiano Found
The child at the centre of the pardon application is an eight-year-old boy. According to Il Fatto Quotidiano, the child has a biological mother living in Uruguay and a living father, and was not, as the clemency application reportedly stated, “abandoned at birth.” The biological mother subsequently disappeared from contact in February 2026, four days after the newspaper published its first article on the case. The lawyer who had been representing the biological mother died, burned to death in her car, after Minetti had reportedly sued the biological parents to obtain custody of the child.
The Quirinale was careful to note its own constitutional limitations in the matter. President Mattarella does not have independent investigative tools to verify the facts presented to him and bases his decisions on documents submitted by the relevant authorities and on the assessments formulated by the judiciary and the Justice Minister.
In other words: if false information was presented in the pardon application, the responsibility lies with those who submitted it, not with the president who acted on it in good faith.
The Milan Prosecutor’s Response
Gaetano Brusa, the deputy prosecutor at the Milan Court of Appeal who had signed the favourable non-binding opinion, said his office had carried out all the checks requested by the ministry at the time. “The procedure arrived from the ministry at the end of 2025. On the basis of what was requested, the picture was complete and no anomalous data emerged. The documentary acquisition was carried out through health checks by the carabinieri.” His office is now awaiting a formal mandate from the Justice Ministry for further investigations, in particular abroad.
The case is moving fast and its full dimensions are not yet clear. What is clear is that a presidential pardon, one of the most solemn acts of executive clemency in the Italian constitutional system, now stands under a cloud of suspicion serious enough for the Quirinale itself to demand answers. The Justice Ministry has 24 hours to begin providing them.
Ph: DELBO ANDREA / Shutterstock.com
