The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection estimates that yesterday's statement given by Igor Becic, the Chairman of the Assembly's Security Supervisory Committee, regarding the Commissioner’s opinion on the Proposed Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Law on BIA, to put it mildly, was frivolous, undoubtedly confirming Becic's complete misunderstanding of the problem, which is under the authority of the Committee he chairs.
The statement "unfair and hypocritical coming from Sabic, who has passed the security check and received a certificate for access to classified information, which he boasted about, and to say now that this very procedure is inappropriate", makes just as much sense as, for example, a claim that those who served army must not criticize any bill on the army, hence it makes no sense at all.
Commissioner Rodoljub Sabic did pass the security check, and has a top-level certificate, and the same or similar, applies to a larger number of his associates. According to the number of certified workers, the institution of the Commissioner is probably at the very state top. However, the Commissioner has never, as Becic says, "boasted about it", only in a situation when the former Minister of Defense, now the director of the BIA, and his associates, tried to make insinuations in order to challenge the Commissioner institution’s security dignity, when the Commissioner was forced to remind of those facts.
But the whole "aspect" chosen by Becic, for the concrete occasion is completely irrelevant, with no links to what should be the subject of the debate. Namely, the Commissioner in his opinion which was requested and given by him, did not elaborate the factual, practical issues of security checks at all, yet solely the legal issues concerning their management. So it is about the issues, such as the legal acts’ hierarchy, i.e. about the constitutionally established obligation that laws and other adopted general acts are to comply with the Constitution, and by-laws with the law which, in an extremely simplified way, means that the matters that must be governed by law, cannot be governed by the BIA directors’ acts. Or similarly, as is the issue of "sedes materiae", i.e. the determination of a position in the legal order, relevant for the resolving, or regulating a certain relationship, which again, in a simplified way, means that the provisions of the Law on Secrecy of Data cannot be disavowed by the by-law acts of the Director.
To some extent, it can be understood that such expert questions are not familiar to Becic, but it cannot be understood that this is how he reacts to them. If something is named as unfair and hypocritical, that means the shrinking of important issues within the competence of the Committee he chairs, to a low, politically cheap level where crude disqualifications are used instead of arguments.
