Eight months after submitting the initiative, the Committee for Economy, Finance, and Budget finally conducted a control hearing of the head of the Montenegrin Electric Distribution System (CEDIS), the Montenegrin Electric Power Company (EPCG), the Minister of Energy, and members of the Senate of the State Audit Institution (SAI) on the financial state and operations of CEDIS in the context of SAI’s negative findings.
Although it was an opposition proposal, utilising the parliamentary mechanism of a minority initiative that cannot be blocked, it took five months just to formally decide on the matter, and then an additional three months to actually implement it.
During the debate on the initiative, submitted on February 14th of this year, there was no consensus on whether a vote was needed or if a date should automatically be scheduled and participants for the hearing determined. In the continuation of the 11th session on March 1st, it was decided to consult the Assembly’s Collegium, which would provide guidance on how to proceed with this initiative. The opposition had invoked Article 75 of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament of Montenegro, which gave them the right to organise two control hearings during the regular session, independent of the political will of the parliamentary majority. This mechanism has been further weakened by this year’s amendments to the Rules of Procedure, which now allow for only one hearing each from both the opposition and the parliamentary majority, despite the fact that the majority controls all parliamentary committees.
The reconsideration of this initiative was delayed for another five months. Without mentioning the Collegium’s opinion, it was adopted on July 1st during the second continuation of the 11th session of the Committee. Then, at the 25th session held on July 16th, it was stated that they were awaiting responses from energy companies in order to schedule a hearing date. The following week, the Parliament’s website announced the date of the hearing—the session was scheduled for July 29th. In the following days, the session was canceled without explanation and without an announcement of when it would be rescheduled. Only on October 10th, a new date was posted on the Parliament’s website—October 15th.
We have repeatedly pointed out the inadequate consideration of so-called minority initiatives, a form of oversight mechanism that has been further limited by the amendments to the Rules of Procedure, adopted in May. The delay of this hearing is even more problematic given the Cooperation Protocol between the State Audit Institution (SAI) and the Parliament, which obliges the Parliament to hold hearings for audit subjects that received a negative opinion from the SAI. Therefore, this hearing was the Committee’s obligation, even without the opposition initiative, and represents the only hearing related to an audit report, even though nine audit reports with negative opinions were published this year.
We have previously highlighted the low success rate of opposition initiatives and the difficulties in implementing approved control hearings. The first session of this year was marked by the suppression of the Assembly’s oversight role, through questioning of oversight mechanisms and the rights of the parliamentary minority, as well as delays in implementing approved initiatives.
This infographic was prepared within the project „Parliament for Citizens: Accountability Redefined“ implemented by Institute Alternative and supported by the National Endowment for Democracy. The infographic is the sole responsiblity of its authors and does not reflect the views of the NED.
