Investigative Commissions/DP appeals the law to the Constitutional Court

2024-03-01 13:55:00, Politikë CNA

Investigative Commissions/DP appeals the law to the Constitutional Court

Chupi gift

On Friday, 33 MPs of the country's opposition asked the Constitutional Court to repeal the law on Investigative Commissions, which was approved in December in the parliament.

Deputy Dhurata Çupi stated that with this law, the majority intends to deprive the opposition of the right to control the government.

5 reasons why the law according to the opposition deputies:

1-The consolidated positions of the Constitutional Court are not reflected in the law approved by the socialists, where it is emphasized that the Assembly, in case the establishment of a parliamentary commission is requested by a quarter of the deputies of the Assembly, has the obligation not to subject it to the parliamentary debate , but only to discuss the degree of respect for constitutional principles in the object of his activity. And in the event that the parliamentary majority raises claims related to non-respect of constitutional principles, it has the right to propose alternative formulations to the minority, until a consensus is reached. However, these alternative proposals cannot be such as to reduce the scope of the investigation to such an extent as to make it impossible for the commission to carry out its activity.

2- The lack of provisions that clearly express the obligation of the Assembly to establish parliamentary investigative commissions when required by the number of deputies defined in the Constitution, as well as the proposal of alternative wordings related to the object of the activity if it is estimated that constitutional principles or standards are violated, gives opportunity for the majority to evaluate at its discretion whether or not these principles have been met and, without making any effort to find consensus, decide to reject the requests for the establishment of investigative commissions. Practically, from the way the above-mentioned provisions are worded, the establishment or not of an investigative commission is entirely at the discretion and interpretation of the majority. The constitution maker intended to avoid exactly this type of discretion, which practically takes away this control mechanism that the opposition has in a democratic state.

3 - The law contradicts one of the main goals of setting up an investigative committee of the Assembly. Concretely, investigative commissions are set up in order to recognize and verify a phenomenon, an event or a specific activity. So, transparency for the media, public opinion and citizens lies at the core of the investigative commissions' activity. The increase of cases of holding meetings with closed doors, some of them quite evasive and leaving room for wide interpretation, only with the votes of the majority, comes against the principle of transparency. This is because, case by case, the members of the majority will assess when transparency should be made for certain aspects of the commission's activity and in which cases it will be acted upon in the absence of transparency.

4-Unlike the current provision that the taking of evidence and the calling of witnesses is done by each member of the commission and is accepted without a vote, the amended law provides that the taking of evidence and the calling of witnesses is carried out by a majority decision. Practically, through this provision, it is intended to sanction that the evidence to be taken and the witnesses to be called are completely at the will of the majority, which also has the largest number of members in the commission. So it will be the majority that will judge whether evidence should be taken or not, or whether a witness should be called or not. In fact, such a mechanism would undo the right of the parliamentary minority to conduct an effective investigation, since the data and evidence to be administered by the commission would be entirely at the discretion of the majority.

5-Receiving an authorization from the prosecution or the court is unprecedented in any state of law or democratic society, even in the context of the principle of separation and balancing of powers. As the Constitutional Court has repeatedly expressed, the existence of a criminal process does not constitute an obstacle for the investigative activity of the Assembly, in the conditions where the goals they pursue are different. On the other hand, giving the right to the witness to refuse the answer in any case that he considers that he or persons related to him may be exposed to investigations, can be used as a tactic by witnesses or their defenders to refuse transparency and accountability. in relation to the investigative commission./ CNA