Parliamentary oversight has reached a stage of stagnation and "routine" consideration of materials coming from the Government, while members of the Security and Defense Committee have neglected the opportunity to take an interest in important issues of the security sector themselves, Dina Bajramspahić, a public policy researcher at the Alternative Institute, assessed today. .
She assessed that the Board remained at the level of its administrative powers and that it uses to a very small extent its special competences, which are provided by the Law and which differentiate it from other working bodies of the Parliament of Montenegro.
"...In addition to the noticeable lack of application of control mechanisms, this Committee does not stand out in the application of its legislative role either...", Bajramspahić assessed at the press conference.
Bajramspahić assessed that the Board did not control the secret surveillance measures applied by the National Security Agency since 2010 and the secret surveillance measures applied by the Police Directorate since 2012.
"The board did not deal with the problems of police torture, torture and ill-treatment, nor did it ever deal with the situation in the prison system. He has never dealt with any anti-corruption policy, nor the work of anti-corruption institutions in relation to the security sector," said Bajramspahić.
According to her assessment, the committee did not deal with public or secret procurements of the security sector, did not consider any report of the Government or the European Commission on chapters 23 and 24 in connection with the security sector, nor did it take an interest even when its member was unconstitutionally "put in prison" ".
She pointed out that the Board held 2018 sessions in 19, of which only three were held at the initiative of the board members.
"While all the others were held after the Government and relevant authorities, in accordance with their legal obligations, submitted to the Assembly the appropriate documents - laws, decisions... The Board considered 27 expert items on the agenda and adopted 31 conclusions".
In 2018, the Committee considered only one bill submitted by the Government.
"And while on the one hand it is understandable that in the absence of the opposition, the ruling majority will not drastically confront the government officials and the policies of the executive power, it remains unclear why the Committee is passive when it comes to its legislative function and does not contribute to solving the problems of the security and defense sector by more actively creating good legal solutions for this sector", said Bajramspahić. The Institute sent 13 recommendations to the Board, including that the Board should use its legislative function more in response to the problems of the security and defense sector.
"It is necessary to avoid the practice of combining discussions on different reports that the Board receives from the subjects of supervision, in order to pay thorough attention to each report. It is also necessary to introduce the practice of segmented thematic discussions on the work of institutions by points of competence", said Bajramspahić.
It is necessary, as he states, to appoint a deputy chairman of the Committee from among the opposition as soon as possible. One of the recommendations is that the Board, in exercising supervision over institutions and bodies in the field of security and defense, establish cooperation with independent institutions, such as the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Agency for the Protection of Personal Data, as well as with the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption.
During 2018, the board conducted one control and consultative and five hearings in the procedure of appointing military-diplomatic representatives.
The only control hearing, as she said, was in June, after the wounding of "Vijesti" journalist Olivera Lakić.
"However, even this single case that was of interest to the Board did not make any progress, so six months later there is still no outcome in terms of a specific indictment. This speaks of the limited scope of influence of the Board", said Bajramspahić.
She assessed that control hearings should be a regular activity of the Board, which is not the case in Montenegro:
"In this part, the most visible is the absence of the opposition, which has the right of "minority initiative", that is, twice a year, without the votes of the ruling majority, it can have a control hearing of officials it chooses and on a topic it chooses."
Bonus video:
