Action for Social Justice announced that the draft law on the Government contains several controversial proposals and that it should be withdrawn from the public discussion.
This, as they state, needs to be done not only for the sake of supplementing it with better and more complete solutions, but especially because the minority government is now in a technical mandate, which deprives it of its original political right to determine legislative proposals, especially those of a systemic nature, such as the one that law.
In the comments of the Action for Social Justice (ASP) on the Draft Law on the Government, they point out, as they state, more indicative solutions and the existence of legal gaps.
The article on the competences of the government in the technical mandate is, as stated in the announcement of the Action for Social Justice, at the very least "throwing dust in the eyes" of the general public.
"Namely, instead of a clear assessment of legal situations, what is allowed and what is not in the technical mandate, the Draft Law stipulates in a very general way that technical jobs are allowed, and these are those that mean the regular performance of financial and other obligations established by law that do not create new financial obligations, without the consent of the Assembly", the announcement states.
This, as they point out, means that the government in a technical mandate, even though it no longer has legitimacy, under such a general definition can practically without restrictions adopt draft laws, determine planning documents, grant concessions, exchange or sell state assets, or even carry out privatizations or long-term leases, i.e. it acts as if it is in full term.
Also, as they say, it is unacceptable that the ban on the government whose mandate has ended applies only to the appointment of state officials, but not to appointments and dismissals.
When, as they state, it is known that secretaries and directors of directorates in ministries are appointed, it means that the government can appoint and dismiss officials of administrative bodies without any restrictions in the technical mandate.
They point out that the position of the member on the government's relationship with the state administration bodies is particularly indicative, which says that "The government will cancel the regulation of the ministry which violates the freedoms and rights of individuals and legal entities, as well as in other cases established by law".
Although, as they add, the control function of the government is indisputable in relation to the other bodies of the executive power, such a wording is more than disputed and raises the question of how the government will determine that there has been a violation of the freedom and rights of natural and legal persons, i.e. whether it confirms on the basis of a court decision on some regulation or she gives herself the right to conduct a special procedure in which she will "judge".
"A provision formulated in this way, which has not yet been legally elaborated, in a partitocratic society such as ours, can open up space for abuses and arbitrary interpretations, so in practice any new government, which for political reasons would not like the regulations passed by the previous government , could annul them under the pretext of violation of the freedom and rights of natural and legal persons", they state from the Action for Social Justice.
They said that, in addition, the government directly binds its public work to the Law on Free Access to Information, which, they say, is currently a very bad and rigid legal text, and enables many jobs to be carried out in secret and without the knowledge of citizens.
They also state that it is incomprehensible that it is not even foreseen that the most important decisions, such as the law on the budget or debts, will be made by a two-thirds majority of the members of the government, but all decisions are made by a majority vote of all members of the government.
The ASP considers it unacceptable that the Draft Law on the Government prescribes that the government can have up to two ministers without portfolios, because this indicates the intention of the authors of that draft to continue to keep open space for the distribution of "party spoils", for which there has been public opinion so far the perception that these ministerial positions mainly serve.
"We point out that this law, and bearing in mind that it is not prescribed by any other, it is necessary to provide that the minister as the head of the body must have a university education, because it is inadmissible for them to be privileged in that sense, especially that they should control managers, for whom it is faculty is a mandatory condition, as a required level of education," they said.
The ASP also indicated that certain provisions remained incomplete, that is, insufficiently elaborated, which, as they state, will in practice create the possibility of arbitrary interpretations.
And, as they say, the current representatives of the executive authorities are more than inclined to do so.
ASP recommended that it is the Parliament of Montenegro to which the government should submit reports on work programs, and not that the government should control itself.
"It was also recommended that the law on the government should stipulate that ministers, upon termination of office, can exercise their right to be paid official benefits for a maximum of three months, and not the full 12 months as currently prescribed by the Law on Salaries in the Public Sector". it is stated in the announcement.
Bonus video:
