The possibility for different interpretations of the provisions and one-step decision-making of the Assembly’s Administrative Committee are the biggest problems in the application of the newly adopted Code of Conduct for MPs, said the programme director of Transparency Serbia, Nemanja Nenadić. Transparency Serbia (TS) conducted an analysis in which it stated that the Code of Conduct for MPs had been adopted by urgent procedure without clear reasons, that civil society’s call for exchange of ideas before its adoption, or for public debate had not been accepted. Nenadić still says that despite all these omissions, it is better that the Code was adopted, as every legal mechanism should be used to point out possible corruption.
OP: Do you have confidence that the Serbian Parliament will implement the Code of Conduct and is Transparency Serbia going to submit complaints to the competent Committee?
NN: If there is a reason, of course, because we always use all available legal mechanisms. We have been submitting petitions to the Oversight Committee, which was formed for the elections and from which not much had ever been expected or announced, so we are certainly going to try this mechanism, which is more firmly legally grounded. I assume that it will first be related to the obligations of MPs to explain decisions on laws that are important to us. We are also going to also use these new provisions in order to reach out to MPs and have them consider our proposals and initiatives. MPs should study proposals for improving the laws that the non-governmental sector submits to the Assembly when it comes to important anti-corruption regulations. This does not mean that they should necessarily support everything we propose, but at least they can consider it.
OP: You also stated in the analysis that the role of the Anti-Corruption Agency in the implementation of the Code remained unclear.
NN: The Committee is obliged to forward to the Agency complaints related to certain points of the Code, whether it is a conflict of interest or receiving gifts. However, there is one legal problem here, because the Agency can establish a violation of the law, but is not authorised to establish if the Code has been violated.
OP: There is an article in the Code saying that an MP may not use official funds or property of the National Assembly for the needs of the election campaign, or abuse their parliamentary function for personal gain or for the benefit of a political party. We have the impression that the MPs in the campaign are violating this provision all the time and every day. What does this article actually refer to?
NN: The first part is clear and it did not have to be articulated here, as it is forbidden by law. Officials can use official vehicles only for the purpose of personal safety protection. For example, the Speaker of the Assembly may visit the boards of their party during the campaign if the assessment of the security services is such. But the provision on the abuse of the parliamentary function for personal benefit or for the benefit of one’s party can be interpreted differently in practice. For instance, the most extreme example would be that an MP takes money from a company for themselves or for their party, and then to use their right to a discussion or parliamentary question in the Assembly to publicly criticise the competition. And in the broadest sense, the abuse of the rostrum is also when an MP in a discussion on a law uses the time to promote their party’s programme on that particular issue, although it has nothing to do with the current topic of the sitting.
OP: There is also a provision that the MP “shall avoid any situation that could indicate bribery or corruption.” It seems that even this formulation means nothing as it is impossible to prove the intention.
NN: This means that if there are indications that they should meet with someone who is interested in meeting them, if they are offered a meeting with an influential person “who can get things done”, the MP simply should not go to such meetings and should be aware.
OP: The Code states that an MP “shall establish constant and direct contact with citizens in parliamentary offices, forums/discussions and other public gatherings, as well as by answering questions sent by mail and electronically.” For now, that is not happening. Who will make them communicate?
NN: If they do not answer the questions, the MPs will violate the Code. The recommendation to citizens is to ask questions again, now that the Code has entered into force, as they will be able to point out the problem.
OP: If they point it out, the Administrative Committee, chaired by the head of the strongest parliamentary group, will decide on the applications. If the Committee decides in favour of its MPs, as it has been deciding on the violation of the Rules of Procedure, as a rule, there will be no further procedure, is that right?
NN: It is. It is where the process ends. It is now specific that due to the composition of the Parliament, almost all members of the Committee are from the ruling coalition, but in general, in most committees, the regime has always been the majority. Another risk is that the one who points out the violation of the Code should submit evidence about it, while the Committee does not have to do anything ex officio. That is why TS pointed out that two-level decision-making is better and that the Ethics Commission should have been used better. Although the formation of the Ethics Commission, which would take care of the application of the Code, has been planned, it remains unclear who could be its members, in addition to the MPs, nominated and appointed people. One of the most important issues – the number and election of members of the Commission and the manner of its work – are not regulated by the Code, but are envisaged to be regulated by an act of the National Assembly. The Commission shall determine which member will be in charge of providing confidential advice to MPs regarding the application of the Code, but the qualifications for selecting these advisors have not been specified. Therefore, I would say that it is certainly good that the Code has been adopted, but that after the Commission will have developed a Guide for the application of the Code, by analysing examples, it will be clearer which dilemmas need to be resolved. The Assembly should then reconsider and specify the contents of the Code.