Former Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte and former Health Minister Roberto Speranza are among twenty individuals who faced judicial scrutiny tied to the management of the early coronavirus outbreak in Italy. The country’s northern regions, particularly Lombardy, were the epicenter as the virus spread in February 2020, a moment that would later be remembered for its heavy toll on life and health services. The Bergamo area, in the north, became a focal point of inquiries aimed at understanding the decisions and actions that contributed to the crisis at its outset.
The Bergamo Prosecutor’s Office completed a lengthy investigation after three years of review, seeking to clarify the reasons behind the pandemic response in Lombardy and the province most severely affected by the wave. The area’s intense impact raised questions about what political responsibilities, if any, may have played a role in the tragedy and how local and national authorities coordinated their efforts during the earliest days of the emergency.
In addition to Conte and Speranza, other prominent figures named in the proceedings include Attilio Fontana, the President of Lombardy, and Silvio Brusaferro, who heads Italy’s national health institute. Reports from local media have also mentioned Angelo Borrelli, the then head of Civil Protection, among the individuals under consideration, alongside several other key officials and experts involved in the public health response.
Five Star Leader
Conte responded to the news by noting that he had learned of the investigation from press agencies and expressed his willingness to cooperate fully with justice. He pledged maximum availability to aid investigators as the case progressed, signaling his commitment to transparency in light of the early pandemic events.
At the time, Speranza, who led the Five Star Movement at the national level, maintained a stance of composure in the face of national scrutiny. He emphasized that he had acted with the utmost dedication and responsibility during one of the Republic’s most trying moments, insisting that the country deserved an honest, thorough examination of those decisions.
From the health ministry’s side, Speranza stated that he trusted the judiciary and reaffirmed a belief that those responsible for managing the pandemic should be held accountable. He remarked that he had always acted with discipline and dignity in the country’s best interests and conveyed confidence that the investigation would proceed with fairness and rigor, remaining calm about the process ahead.
Families and associations representing victims welcomed the prosecutor’s work, expressing relief that the investigation was proceeding. They stressed that the inquiry aimed to identify concrete responsibilities across both political and corporate sectors, acknowledging the pain endured by countless families while affirming their resolve to seek accountability for the suffering caused by the crisis. The response from the victims’ relatives underscored a commitment to honoring those lost and ensuring that the search for truth continues unabated.
Bergamo isolation
The investigation sought to uncover why certain parts of Bergamo province were not isolated at the outset, despite evidence showing that the virus was circulating in streets and hospitals within local municipalities. The inquiry examined the timeline and decisions that led to the initial containment measures and how rapidly, or slowly, the authorities acted to restrict movement and protect vulnerable populations.
The earliest confirmed transmission in Lombardy occurred in Codogno on February 21, followed by the government’s decision to isolate eleven outbreaks the next day. The list included ten towns in Lombardy, within the province of Lodi, and one location in the northeast region of Veneto, marking a decisive, nationwide response to a rapidly evolving threat.
Yet questions remained about why towns such as Nembro and Alzano, which housed substantial industrial clusters in Bergamo province, were not included in the initial isolation plan and were not placed under containment until March 8. Relatives of victims from those communities noted that life continued relatively normally during those two crucial weeks, a period many viewed as foundational to the subsequent surge in cases and fatalities that affected the broader region.