Flash News

Drenova prison police officer arrested for bringing drugs and illegal items into cell

Lavrov: NATO is risking self-destruction with new military budget

Kurti and Vučić "face off" tomorrow in Skopje

Construction worker dies after falling from scaffolding in Berat

The prosecution sends two Korça Municipality officials to trial

OPINEWS

So that we don't all go crazy at the same time as Shvejku warned

Politiko 2024-05-22 17:19:33

So that we don't all go crazy at the same time as Shvejku warned

Point 2 of Article 148/dh of the Constitution, added with the "famous" reform in justice on July 22, 2016, states that:
"The Special Prosecutor's Office consists of at least 10 prosecutors, who are appointed by the High Council of Prosecutors for 9 YEARS , WITHOUT RIGHT OF RENAME.”
The constitution is quite clear. There is no room for interpretation. And it was absolutely intended to be like this and it is not the forgetfulness of the constitution maker.
The chief prosecutor of SPAK gave two "overwhelming" arguments for the claim of the SPAK prosecutors' corps, why these prosecutors should remain in office indefinitely, or at least have the right to be reappointed for another 9-year term:
- A prosecutor falls in love with the case , knows it in detail even at 12 o'clock at night, but the end of the mandate comes and he is forced to let the case go. The other prosecutor who will replace him does not have the same "love" for the case.
- The developments in crime are extending the deadlines for the investigation of cases and it takes a lot of time from a prosecutor.
The investigation is not a matter of "love", otherwise this is a morbid love. The investigation is a matter of law, procedure, evidence, objectivity and justice.
The investigation terms are much shorter than the 9-year mandate of a SPAK prosecutor. So the time is running out. God forbid anyone in their right mind prolongs the investigation of a case for up to 9 years. Not even dictatorships bring it to mind.
They have been investigating the opposition leader for 3 years without registering any charges, but they arrested him. They didn't arrest him because he might commit the crime again, spoil the evidence or because he might leave, but to punish him for opposing as unconstitutional the restrictions on the freedom of a member of parliament elected by the people. How long can they hold him hostage by preventing him from leading the opposition? Maybe until the spring 2025 election? Or until the moment comes when he takes the oath as an elected deputy and is prevented from receiving the mandate and to replace him with an arrest measure as is happening with the elected mayor of the municipality of Himara?
If this claim of 17 prosecutors were to be fulfilled, it would strengthen the danger that I denounced in 2016 as vice-chairman of the Law Reform Commission when the amendments were being debated, that this body risks turning into not just a corporation, but a dangerous fraternity. Selectivity under the influence of corruption, politics, or simply that these prosecutors decide who will be the policy and not the voters with a vote, are serious dangers behind this gate.
This would be a serious intervention with 94 votes in the Constitution that would worsen the constitutional architecture of Justice, which even as it is, has serious defects.
But without further ado, the answer is why SPAK is wrong in their claim to have the right to reappointment, it was given in 2008 by the Venice Commission when a 5-year mandate was set for the General Prosecutor and that pushed us to 2016 that the prosecutor's mandate of SPAK to be 9 years long and without reappointment:
"Article 9 which amends article 149
20. The new wording provides that the General Prosecutor is appointed by the President with the consent of the Assembly for a five-year term with the right of reappointment. This amendment seems a step backwards and risks compromising the impartiality of the Attorney General, especially in the period when he or she is seeking re-election. A longer term without the possibility of reappointment would be preferable. In an Opinion on draft amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine (CDL-AD(2008)029, paragraph 33) the Venice Commission stated: “According to the proposed section 3, the mandate of the Prosecutor General will be extended from 5 to 7 years. This longer term should reduce the politicization of the function and may be a guarantee for the impartiality of the Prosecutor General. Therefore, it seems a step in the right direction. It would seem even better to provide that the Prosecutor General can remain in office until reaching retirement age or, if a limited term is preferred, to exclude the possibility of reappointment, as is the case for constitutional judges under Article 148 of the Constitution [of Ukraine]. Otherwise, the Attorney General may be unduly influenced in his or her decisions by a desire for re-election.”
Paragraph 20 of the opinion of the Venice Commission -https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2008)033- https://www.venice.coe.int /webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2008)033-e

That's enough!

So that we don't all go crazy at the same time as Shvejku warned

Latest news