The work of the Inquiry Committee so far has shown that there is substantial room for improving its performance, especially in the areas of data collection and effective use of time during sessions.
The Inquiry Committee will find it difficult to achieve its stated goals if it continues working in the manner we recently witnessed. A newspaper headline perhaps best describes the quality and reach of the Committee’s first hearing – “Answers reflect the questions.”
The Inquiry Committee should have prepared by collecting relevant documentation from the National Security Agency, the Ministry of the Interior, and materials that may have been archived from these or other institutions in the State Archives of Montenegro. The Committee cannot claim that certain data do not exist or have been destroyed, nor that they cannot obtain specific information, without first submitting an official request to the institutions that possess those information.
The Law on Parliamentary Inquiry is precise in this regard: “The Inquiry Committee is authorized to request from all state bodies, local self-government bodies, institutions, and legal entities to provide for its inspection all documentation that may be of significance for carrying out the task entrusted to it.” The mentioned bodies are obliged to respond to the Committee’s request as soon as possible and provide truthful documents, information, and statements.
The law also stipulates: “If there are documents related to the subject of the parliamentary inquiry that are classified, members of the Inquiry Committee must be allowed access to that documentation in accordance with the special law regulating access to classified information.”
The Inquiry Committee could have previously invited individuals who had presented certain information or knowledge to the public, or those whom Committee members believe possess direct knowledge, hold particular documents, or could otherwise contribute by guiding the Committee’s further actions.
We witnessed that only after a repeated vote did the Committee adopt the decision to invite the second person to be interviewed. It would have been better if a preliminary list of individuals to be invited had been formed based on members’ proposals and aligned with the time effectively available. This would have ensured better planning of the Committee’s work within the deadlines it set for itself.
The method of work displayed is concerning, as it allows Committee members and invited persons to speak without time limits, which often turns into political presentation and debate. We believe it is clearly not an effective method to allow Committee members to pose multiple questions collectively, while invited persons provide collective answers to several previously posed questions.
We recommend that after each hearing, the Inquiry Committee publishes minutes with key findings and statements relevant to the Report the Committee prepares. Only in this way can the public follow the logic and progress of the Committee’s work.
It is necessary to consider the possibility of regulating the Committee’s work through a special rulebook, which would prescribe the methodology and a number of other important procedural rules.
We support extending the deadline for the parliamentary inquiry for as long as necessary to properly conduct the investigation and achieve the purpose for which the Committee was formed. However, regarding the announced amendment to the Decision on establishing the Inquiry Committee, it should be kept in mind that the Law on Parliamentary Inquiry sets a deadline “by which the inquiry committee must complete the parliamentary investigation” and defines the moment when the Committee ceases to function, which is the day on which the Committee’s report is adopted.
Stevo Muk