CDT: Constitutional changes in the judiciary must not become a collection of ad hoc solutions
The Center for Democratic Transition (CDT) submitted to the Constitutional Committee of the Parliament of Montenegro its opinions, comments and proposals regarding Draft Amendments XVII through XXI to the Constitution of Montenegro, calling for the proposed solutions to be further and thoroughly reconsidered before the amendments are formally adopted as proposals.
The NGO believes that the proposed changes do not establish a sufficiently consistent and coherent model for regulating the Judicial Council and the Prosecutorial Council.
- Although the procedure for electing members of both councils and the required majority are regulated in the same way, no clear and convincing explanations have been provided for the significant differences in their composition and the manner in which they are chaired - the CDT said.
The organization points out that it is unclear, for example, why lawyers are treated differently in terms of membership in the two councils, why a representative of the non-governmental sector is provided for only in the Prosecutorial Council, or why the chairing of these bodies is based on different principles.
- Differences between the two councils may be justified by their distinct powers and roles, but they must be the result of a clear concept and well-founded principles, rather than partial solutions - the organization said.
The CDT particularly warns that the proposed composition of the Prosecutorial Council does not eliminate the risk of corporatism and excessive concentration of power.
- The simultaneous holding of the office of Supreme State Prosecutor and President of the Prosecutorial Council, combined with the majority in the Council held by representatives of the prosecutorial organization, could weaken its supervisory role. We therefore propose that the chairing of the Judicial Council and Prosecutorial Council be regulated according to the same principle, with each council electing its president from among members who do not belong to the judiciary or prosecutorial organization, respectively - the statement said.
According to the CDT, the Draft also contains legal and legislative-drafting shortcomings that further point to the need for a thorough review of the entire text before the final Draft Amendments are established.
- Constitutional changes should not suffer because of delays in launching this process and the need to make up for lost time within tight deadlines and fulfil obligations under the European agenda. These are rules that should remain in force for considerably longer than the current phase of European integration. Therefore, speed must not take precedence over quality, nor should the need to meet deadlines take precedence over thorough professional and political debate on solutions that need to be clear, consistent and sustainable in the long term - the statement said.