Who Still Cares For the Committee’s Conclusions?

Supreme State Prosecutor and Administration for Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing didn’t fulfill the obligations, envisaged by the conclusion from the February’s control hearing, conducted by the Security and Defence Committee. They failed to meet the deadline for submitting information about the activities they undertook in examining allegations about the corruption during and after the privatisation of Montenegrin Telekom.

Security and Defence Committee conducted a control hearing of Supreme State Prosecutor and director of Administration for Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing on February 14. The two were questioned about the so far activities of the competent authorities on the case.

Following the control hearing, the Committee adopted conclusions which, among other things, demanded from the participants of the control hearing to inform the Committee about the activities on the Telekom case by May 2012. The afore mentioned insitutions neither respected the deadline nor they requested the necessary information.

Committees’ conclusions, which are adopted after the control hearins, are usually downgraded to the abstract encouragement of the authorities to undertake activities already asigned to them by the Constitution and relevant laws. The February’s conclusion is among the rare conclusions which consisted additional obligation for the subjects of control hearing, precise deadline for meeting this obligation and relatively clear definition of the requested information.

However, the current attitude of institutions is unacceptable and it demonstrates the lack of responsibility of representatives of executive power in front of the MPs. Neglecting the obligations defined by the parliamentary working bodies is an insult for MPs, working bodies’ members, and the entire parliament. Apart from reminding on this obligation, members of the Security and Defence Committee should demand from the Supreme State Prosecutor and director of the Administration for Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing explanation for not obiding their request and clearly condemn such behavior.

On the other hand, the non-existence of efficient mechanisms for the monitoring of the implementation of the adopted conclusions represents the shortfall of the Parliament and its working bodies, and it endangers the efficiency of parliamentary oversight.

Marko Sošić
Public Policy Reseacher

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *