Year: 2014

The Administrative Committee has brought disgrace upon itself and this must be said loud and clear. Negative mutual solidarity of the Committee members expressed in a particular crisis situation will be marked as a dark page in the history of this Committee and the Parliament of Montenegro.

Imagine the following situation. It is stipulated in the law that if you were to leave the country, you would require a passport. You arrive at the border with your passport, where the official tells you that you also require an identification card. You posses an ID, but you did not bring it, since it was not stipulated in the law that you would need it. An official informs you with a forthright tone of voice that you cannot cross the border and have to return home.

This is the simplest explanation of a situation that has emerged last week due to unprovoked actions by the Administrative Committee, which undermined the good relationship of a large number of NGOs and the Parliament of Montenegro. In particular, the Administrative Committee refused to recognize letters of support from dozens of non-governmental organizations that had, in accordance with the law, supported their candidates for the RTCG Council. These NGOs have supported their candidates in a manner stipulated by the law, meaning that they have submitted all the required documentation, but apparently have not done this in accordance with some sort of Minutes from the meeting of the working group established by the Administrative Committee. One MP of Positive Montenegro and one MP of Democratic Party of Socialist (DPS) found themselves in this working group, along with the three employees of the Parliamentary Service. This working group has given itself the right to interpret the Law on Public Broadcasting Services of Montenegro and to adopt what essentially is a by-law for application of this Law in relation to the process of appointment of members of the RTCG Council.

The surprise of non-governmental organizations was even greater as we thought that particularly the MPs of opposition parties will be careful in counting the votes. The opposition knows best what stealing votes means and how it must hurt. Unfortunately, it appears that this time the opposition did not apply the same criteria as when it comes to interests of political parties.

The unity of the members of the ruling and opposition political parties shown during the discussion and voting at this session of the Administrative Committee is peculiar, at the very least.

No one has yet managed to explain to us why it had been decided to infringe the Law on Public Broadcasting Services of Montenegro and based on what other regulations was it decided to erase dozens of legitimate authorized nominators.

That everything is not as crystal clear as the Administrative Committee argues, demonstrates the fact that the Collegium of the President of the Parliament of Montenegro (which was comprised of the heads of parliamentary groups of the same political parties) day before the (in)famous session of the Committee, suggested to the Committee to suspend the decision-making. Obviously, the Collegium took into consideration the explanations and appeals of dozens of NGOs, which considered to be illegally removed from the lists of candidate support.

As it later turns out, MP Azra Jasavić was in fact a negative face of the Positive (Montenegro). As a matter of fact, she was the first person obliged to say “I cannot be a member of this working group, since I have worked for the organization governed by one of the candidates.” In other words, Azra Jasavić had to voice her concern about this conflict of interest (at least as a moral dilemma). Instead, it appears not only that Ms Jasavić administrated the entire illegal procedure, but that she is the loudest defender of the idea that the subsequent interpretation of the rules may result in an unequal position of at least one of the candidates.

In other words, even if the interpretation of the Administrative Committee is indeed appropriate, every candidate and authorized nominator had to be informed about the interpretation the day the public call for the appointment of members of the Council was published. Otherwise, we, as well as the general public, are entitled to have doubts about some candidates becoming familiar with the interpretation and the methodology much sooner than the others, and thus acquiring an irreplaceable advantage within the procedure.

All things considered, the Administrative Committee has brought disgrace upon itself and this must be said loud and clear. Negative mutual solidarity of the Committee members expressed in a particular crisis situation will be marked as a dark page in the history of this Committee and the Parliament of Montenegro. Instead of providing response to questions formally and publically posed by the NGOs, members of the Committee labeled these inquiries as “informal pressure measurements” and gave full support to the illegal work conducted by the two MPs, members of the Committee.

Instead of willingness to reexamine and take into consideration the documentation submitted in the written form, the Committee members said that they believed the word of honor of their colleagues. Do the Committee members by any chance expect a return favor and the support of their colleagues with some different interpretation of the law in the future? Is that the “principle” according to which the MPs should act and make decisions in the committees of the Parliament of Montenegro?

There is enough material here for the work of the Administrative Court, the Constitutional Court, and possibly the competent prosecutor. Therefore, it is in the public’s best interest for the damage inflicted upon the public interest, rule of law and the reputation of the Parliament of Montenegro to be repaired as soon as possible.

The process of appointment of the new composition of the RTCG Council could have been anything other than this scandal. The Administrative Committee has managed to add yet another ugly segment to the picture of NGOs drawn by various actors for years now.

The Professional Service of the Administrative Committee has the right to make a mistake, but is at the same time obliged to remedy it.

Azra Jasavić has the right to make a mistake, but is at the same time obliged to remedy it. The Administrative Committee has the right to make a mistake, but is at the same time obliged to remedy it. The Parliament of Montenegro, meaning the Assembly of the Parliament has to try and remedy the mistakes made at the earlier stages of this process. The most responsible for the legality of the work of the Parliament of Montenegro is the President, but each and every member of the Parliament likewise.

Stevo Muk
President of the Managing Board

text originally published in the ,,Forum” section of the daily Vijesti