Brussels as an excuse, public debate as decor: Committee establishes proposed amendments to the Constitution, none of the suggestions were adopted

The public debate on amendments to the Constitution was just a formality, because the government had no real intention to consider the received proposals for the draft amendment, nor to change the already agreed solutions - assessed representatives of the Institute Alternative (IA) and the Human Rights Action (HRA), warning that this further deepened distrust in the political elite, which is solely responsible for the delay in constitutional reform.

The Constitutional Committee of the Parliament yesterday adopted a proposal for amendments (17 to 21) to the Constitution, relating to the Prosecutorial and Judicial Councils (i.e. their composition) and the Central Bank (i.e. the independence of that institution), but did not adopt any of the proposals, opinions and suggestions submitted during the public debate on the draft text. The session also adopted a constitutional law to implement the amendments. The Parliament will decide on all of this at its session starting on 24 August. The amendments to the Constitution are expected to be adopted, which is a key obligation for Montenegro in order to close Chapters 23 (judiciary and fundamental rights) and 17 (economic and monetary union) in negotiations with the European Union (EU).

The Alternative Institute and HRA submitted suggestions and comments on the Constitution, which were rejected on the grounds that there was no time to submit them to the European Commission (EC) for comment.

"Due to the deadlines we received from our partners and the obligation to vote on these constitutional amendments by August 24, we will not be able to possibly coordinate these proposals that have been submitted for public debate with the EC and possibly with the Venice Commission," said the President of the Constitutional Committee at yesterday's session. Jelena Božović.

She said that they heard a lot of good proposals, that the MPs agreed that everything could have been conceived differently, and that there were proposals that everyone agreed on.

The committee also did not accept proposals submitted by the Institute for Forensic Accounting, a former Constitutional Court judge, and the current advisor to the Speaker of Parliament. Milorad Gogic, Montenegrin Forum, Center for Democratic Transition (CDT), Civic Action Budva, as well as participants in the round table held on August 3, who orally presented their proposals.

Muk: Admitted that the debate is irrelevant

President of the Board of Directors of the Alternative Institute Stevo Muk He told "Vijesti" that members of the Constitutional Committee openly admitted yesterday that the public debate on amendments to the Constitution was a mere formality, and that there was no political will to change anything in relation to the proposed amendment.

The Committee members, he said, agreed to abstain from all received suggestions/amendments.

"Justifications like 'Brussels', 'our partners', 'already agreed', 'European integration', 'deadlines', do not change the essence - the current government never wanted a public debate on this issue, and the opposition helped it in that," Muk said.

He reminds that the amendments to the Constitution have been in the parliamentary procedure since February and that the current government could - and believes it should - have negotiated these solutions, rather than agreeing "to what they will adopt."

"We still cannot recognize in any official document, neither the European nor the Venice Commission, nor in the document on negotiations, an imperative demand that such a text of amendments be adopted," said Muk.

As he added, the space existed, but was not used, and the reasons should be asked from the government, as well as the opposition, which agreed to support something like this.

"I believe that, essentially, neither a large part of the government nor a large part of the opposition support this solution that was adopted," Muk underlined.

Gorjanc Prelević: The public was deceived

Director of Human Rights Action Tea Gorjanc Prelevic She told the newspaper that the HRA had submitted four reasoned proposals to the Constitutional Committee in a timely manner, expecting them to be considered and responded to through a corresponding report on the public hearing.

As she said, not only was the report not published, but it was also announced that the proposals were not even considered, because there was allegedly no time to coordinate them with the EC.

"Therefore, the public was deceived by announcing a public debate, which was held pro forma. It would have been fair to announce in advance that any proposals would not be taken into account," said Gorjanc Prelević, stating that this further deepened distrust in the political elite, which is solely responsible for the delay in constitutional reform.

She announced that the HRA would submit the proposals, "which it had sent to the Parliament in vain," to the EC, in the hope that they would at least consider them in the interest of preventing further problems in Montenegrin practice.

The interviewee recalls that the HRA proposed the exclusion of the President of the Supreme Court and the Supreme State Prosecutor from the composition of the councils (Judicial and Prosecutorial), following the example of Croatia, Slovenia, Albania, Moldova, and a profiled selection of reputable lawyers so that one is proposed by the Bar Association and the Faculty of Law (of a state university), and two are to be elected by public invitation.

They also proposed an individual, rather than collective, mandate for council members, and harmonizing the status of both councils - that they be proclaimed by the president of the state and that the president of both councils have the deciding vote.

IA requested that the VDT be removed from the Prosecutorial Council

The Alternative Institute proposed five changes - to remove the Supreme State Prosecutor (SSP) from the Prosecutorial Council - both as president by function and as a member in general.

They offered two options for his position: to be filled by a member appointed by the President of Montenegro (by public invitation, according to the same criteria as for eminent lawyers) or to be appointed by the Conference of Judges - which, they say, would establish a more balanced relationship between the judicial professions in the Council.

Their proposal was, among other things, that the qualified majority for the election of members of the Prosecutorial Council should be replaced by a majority of all MPs, and that the circle of authorized proposers for the dismissal of the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office should be expanded - that the initiative, in addition to the current ones, could be submitted by an expanded session of the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office, the Minister of Justice, or 25 MPs.

The Center for Democratic Transition (CDT) proposed a uniform and long-term arrangement of the composition of the Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils, instead of different and, as they assessed, ad hoc solutions. They also suggested considering professionalizing the membership of the councils.

Their proposal was to change the composition of the Prosecutorial Council in order to prevent corporatism and concentration of power, i.e. a situation in which prosecutors, together with the Supreme Prosecutor's Office, have a dominant influence in the Council.

They believe that the chairmanship of the Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils should be regulated according to the same principle - that the president of each council be elected from among members who do not belong to the judicial or prosecutorial organization.

Gogić: Minister of Justice should be on the Prosecutorial Council

Milorad Gogić also proposed that the composition of the Prosecutorial Council be equal to that of the Judicial Council, i.e. that the Prosecutorial Council have a total of ten members, that the Supreme Prosecutor's Office should not automatically be the president of the Prosecutorial Council, but that the president be elected by members from among reputable lawyers, and that the heads of state prosecutor's offices should not be members of the Prosecutorial Council from among prosecutors, but that these members be elected by their colleagues from among state prosecutors who are not managers.

He, however, believes that the Minister of Justice should be a member of the Prosecutorial Council, instead of a representative of the Ministry of Justice who would be appointed by the Minister, which is contrary to international recommendations.

The key proposals of the Montenegrin Forum were to precisely define who can be a "respected lawyer" - with at least 20 years of experience, measurable professional results, high personal integrity and at least six years without party or political engagement, to form an independent expert commission that would check and rank candidates for the Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils before the parliamentary committee decides on them, to introduce continuous checks on the assets and lifestyle of the special prosecutor and members of the council, to prevent the Minister of Justice from being a member of the Prosecutorial Council...

The key proposals of the Institute for Forensic Accounting were that at least one member of the Judicial and Prosecutorial Council should be an expert in digitalization/informatics and economics, with knowledge of the basics of the legal and judicial system, and that the qualifications for the terms "eminent lawyer" and "eminent expert" be more precisely defined.

Civic Action Budva proposed, among other things, that the number of prominent lawyers in the Prosecutorial Council elected by the Parliament be reduced from four to two, that the President of the Judicial Council be a judge, or rather, that he be elected from among the members who hold judicial office, that the number of state prosecutors in the Prosecutorial Council be increased from five to seven, who would be elected and dismissed by the Conference of State Prosecutors, with equal representation of different prosecutors' offices.

President of the Lawyers' Association Branislav Radulović At the roundtable, he proposed to review and clarify the position of the Minister of Justice in the Prosecutorial Council, and to harmonize the terminology "respected" and "prominent lawyer"

Student at the Faculty of Law Milica Prelevic She proposed introducing strict and measurable criteria for the selection of eminent lawyers and equalizing the standards of the Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils regarding the presence of representatives of the executive branch.

Lack of interest in dialogue with citizens limits democracy

Tea Gorjanc Prelević points out that amendments to the Constitution, as well as recent changes to the legal powers of state security services and the police, are very serious topics of interest to all citizens, not just the ruling parties.

"The lack of interest in dialogue with citizens limits democracy and exposes our party-political reality," she warned.

The President of the Municipality of Budva, Nikola Jovanović, said yesterday that the public debate is not a decoration.

He wrote on social media that he supports constitutional changes that strengthen the independence of the judiciary and accelerate Montenegro's European path, but that it is not acceptable to hold a public debate, admit that the proposals are good, and then reject each of them due to deadlines.

"Before voting, the Assembly must publicly explain why none of the proposals were accepted. Europe is not just a deadline. Europe is a standard," he said.