To come presidential by Alexander Stubb spouse Suzanne Innes-Stubb works in a high position at the stock exchange company Kone. Innes-Stubb is Head of Global Compliance at Kone, known for its elevators. He is a lawyer by training.
Can she continue her job as the president’s spouse?
“However, as far as I understand, he is not in the management positions of the company, neither on the board nor in the management team. Personally, I would consider that such a task is not problematic in relation to her husband’s future presidency”, says the emeritus professor of administrative law at the University of Helsinki Olli Mäenpää.
“It’s a normal work task, although quite significant. But not particularly relevant in terms of foreign policy or the duties of the president of the republic.”
According to Mäenpää, the continuation of Innes-Stubb’s work remains for the president himself to assess.
“The president himself is responsible for making a correct assessment of the matter. He has a legal advisor at his disposal.”
The current president Sauli Niinistön spouse Jenni Haukio still worked as the coalition’s communications manager in 2012, but left the position when Niinistö was elected president. Haukio later worked as the program director of the Turku Book Fair and also continued his studies. He graduated as a doctor of political science in 2022.
How about if future president Stubb goes on an export promotion trip to an important country for Kone?
“In that respect, the president should probably be careful. As for Kone, he can’t really promote exports if his wife is still working there,” says Mäenpää.
There is one kind of precedent regarding export promotion, which, however, concerns the prime minister. At that time, there was a discussion about where the border really goes, and the case gives a clue to the president as well.
Prime minister Juha Sipilä (center) made a trip to India in 2016, which was also attended by a company called Chempolis. Sipilä’s children owned slightly more than eight percent of Chempolis at the time of the trip to India, and in addition, Sipilä had given the company a loan through his investment company in 2011.
The Chancellor of Justice received a complaint about this, but he found no support for the fact that Sipilä had in any way favored Chempolis or tried to influence Chempolis’ negotiations in India.
According to the decision of the Deputy Chancellor of Justice, doubts about Sipilä’s neutrality were still understandable due to the ownership and financial relationship of the related parties.