Source: Nedeljni Telegraf
Serbia is strangled by amours, satellites, suitcases, traffic, bankruptcy, tax mafia, and every bigger scandal involves people from the top of the state, warns Republic Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, claiming: For many in power I am a state enemy- Constitutional Law has created conditions for my change
- Instead of controlling State Administration, stricter control of media is requested
- BIA completely ignores the law
- There is no political will for opening secret files
- Financing of parties - is a secret.
In political circles for a longer time already one speculates that Rodoljub Sabic, Republic Commissioner for Information of Public Importance could be relieved of his duty, even that the liquidation of the Commissioner's function is in preparation. The basic for those rumors is provision of Article 5 of the Constitutional Law, explains for NT Rodoljub Sabic, saying that according to that, there are three possible solutions:
- As first, the National Assembly can reliever the Commissioner from his duty in any moment, if they evaluate that he is performing his function dishonestly and in a poor way. I don't see that as realistic. Evaluations about the work of the Commissioner speak contrary to that, and the criticism was practically non-existent. Except if we would by critical evaluations understand arbitrary and incompetent disqualifications, that I am a state enemy - from ex-Minister of Justice, or primitive insults from the current Manager of Putevi Srbije (Roads of Serbia). - The second solution is so-called reappointment. There is no basis for that in this moment. This measure hasn't been envisaged by the Law on Free Access to Information, or by the Constitutional Law. If they wanted something like that, probably it would be written clearly in the Constitutional Law, as it writes - the Governor of NB shall be appointed, and not for example, the body in charge of jobs of monetary policy - Commissioner for Information, not „body in charge of monitoring the rights of citizens to be informed“. Therefore we reasonably calculate with the third solution - that unclear provision of Article 5 of the Constitutional Law should be used, and that under the form „of harmonizing with the Constitution“ they should not only eliminate the current Commissioner, but, what is much more important - to suspend the institution of the Commissioner for Information. It should be replaced by the body of unusually ugly name - „body in charge of monitoring of the rights of citizens to be informed“.
What would suspension of the Commissioner's institution mean? What message would the authorities send by such an act? - That shouldn't be evaluated by me, but by the citizens, journalists, civil sector, public in general. In any case I do not think that it would be a good way for authorities to confirm their pro-European, democratic and anti-corruption attitude. Can you forecast which political structures could have interest to close down the Commissioner's office and why? - It is not just about „closing of the“Commissioner's office. We speak in fact about the interest to deprive the public from the right to know what the power does. That right is inalienable in democratic world, but in any society, especially during vague transition times, there are many of those who out of various reasons - from protection of the exclusive position, to hiding of lack of competency, to criminal and corruption - consider the public to be unwanted. Those are numerous structures, not only the political ones, they exist on all social levels.
How much corruption, abuse, lack of competence is there amongst our state officials, in your opinion - the things that should be hidden?
- Unfortunately, much. There is no big scandal without involvement, in this or that way, of someone in power. Armors, satellites, suitcases, university, traffic, bankruptcy, tax and who knows what else type of „mob“. The problem is that those scandals mostly persist, and so much needed consequences are most often omitted.
What is your cooperation like with the Government of Serbia and the other state administration bodies?
- After election of the Commissioner, the Government forgot to provide the most elementary prerequisites for his work. It took us more than half a year to start operations. And for almost two years I have written assurances that the space for Commissioner's service shall be resolved as „priority issue“, but without any effect. Even longer than that, the Government does not reflect on requests to provide execution of the Commissioner's Decision. It is similar to activation of the mechanisms for transgression responsibility of perpetrators. The same applies to my initiatives related to the necessary education of staff, for passing of complementary laws. There are still more things, not to quote. It is a pity. If it wasn't so, we would have much better results in law implementation.
With what state body did you have the most problems in cooperation and why?
- In the annual report I submitted to the Assembly of Serbia, as an example of extremely bad relationship towards the law I have marked BIA (Security Intelligence Agency). And that without any competition. While with the others one can speak about bigger or smaller problems in application, in case of BIA they completely ignore the law. Not only that they completely fail to respond on the requests from citizens and from the Commissioner to state their opinion, they are not observing the Orders from the Commissioner and the Supreme Court, and they also do not perform even the elementary obligations like publishing of Information Booklet and submitting Annual Reports to the Commissioner. Those obligations are regularly observed by far more important bodies - Assembly of Serbia, the President, the Government, Supreme and Constitutional Court. In democratic, legally regulated state no one can give himself the right to be exempt from the law, because in such way they undermine the authority of both the law and of the Parliament that has passed it. Is there a consciousness in the state administration bodies about what their role is exactly, and how much are they ready to get hold of specific problems in their job? - That consciousness exists in a significant number of people, but I think that it is still not dominant. Many people in power still do not understand that in contemporary conditions yielding power is not governing and lordship, but managing public jobs. And that is managing for which the Government is directly responsible to the people who handed the legitimacy and the money to it.
What are the greatest shortcomings of the people working in the state administration? Is the system kindling neglect, negligence and superficial attitude towards work, or individuals are to blame for that? - In the state administration there are for sure people contributing to the atmosphere of neglect, negligence and irresponsibility. But I think that more than individual's mentality, such atmosphere is formed based on the fact that we failed to change the system in a radical way.
Would a smaller state administration prove more efficient? What should be changed in essence in order to have state administration workers stop dealing with information as though they are their personal property? - Efficiency of the state administration is one of the permanent „on-duty“ issues. It is not always sure that everybody understands the same things regarding that point. Do we speak about the administration that is cheaper, because it spends less money? Or about an administration giving more for the same amount of money? Or about an administration that for a little bit more money gives us much more? The specific answer is - yes. Smaller administration could be more efficient, even much more efficient, but it requires investment both in staff and in logical systems. So we need clerks and officials who much better know legal and other EU standards, as we want to be a member of the EU, and we also need the administration concept that with more intense use of e-technologies leads us to e-government, as defined in Europe. By education and other measures it is necessary to create in the minds of employees of state administration a clear picture that the information from their work and about it are pre-paid by the tax-payers' money, and they should be in the function of the more qualitative life of those who pay. That means availability of that information to the science, culture, production and business, whenever it is possible.
How many requests have been directed to you from the beginning of work, to react regarding information of public importance? How much requests did you receive during this year? Who has contacted you the most often and why?
- From the beginning till today we have registered close to 3,000 cases in the Commissioner's service, and in the first five months of this year, around 600. The majority of them are requests for protection of rights. Everybody submits them - citizens, NGOs, journalists, media, political parties, bodies in power, most frequently and the citizens. And the main subject of interest shows that they have recognized the anti-corruption potential of the law. The biggest interest is for budget, public procurements, donations, representation costs, salaries and compensations, in one word for using state money.
To how many of your letters had the bodies in power replied, and how many of them remained without an answer? - In a large number of cases the procedure ends without the need to pass a Decision and to issue and Order. In more than half of the cases already after the first intervention, that is the request for making a statement, the bodies in power give the requestors requested information. In other cases I have to pass a Decision. The bodies in power mainly deal according to the orders from the Decision, but not in all cases. In such situations, according to the law, The Government of Serbia is obliged to provide for execution of the Commissioner's Decision. However, so far, not in one case when the citizens, journalists or somebody else requested that from the Government, it did so. The Government didn't do it. Although the number is not too big, there are couples of tens, still it is clear that such a relationship has non-stimulating consequences for quality law implementation.
To what questions the citizens that turned to you never received an answer?
- Those cases have been quoted in the Report that I have delivered to the Assembly of Serbia. Amongst them are also those who have triggered serious publicity, like for instance information about „multi-colored trains“, number of wiretapped persons, sales of Mobtel, financing of political parties... Does the state has something to hide, or is it just about heritage from the past, when everything was a secret? - The state shall always have legitimate reasons to deprive public of certain information. Only, such reasons are not abounding, on the contrary. Therefore too large number of cases of confidentiality or secrecy is reasonably triggering doubt if behind that are hiding illegitimate interests. So, not state interests, but a group of individuals.
Do you think that secret dossiers shall ever be opened in Serbia? What should happen in order to do that? What secrets could be unveiled? - I believe that it will, only the political will is missing. Although it is very probable that a part of the documents has been destroyed or „processed“, presenting certain information to the public would add to demystification of certain issues and elimination of certain dilemmas, and in that way at least a little bit make our transition path easier.
Were you ever a target of threats or any other forms of harassment because of the job you perform? Did you report such cases? - Yes, I was, very often. Once or twice the people in charge were informed. I do not know if they have done anything. S. Vlajnic Photo: Z. Tatar
Protection of Personality Data - Only in Theory
How do you comment on the fact that in Serbia even the most banal things are secret, and on the other hand, privacy of certain people is harshly violated in certain media, their respect, career and life are destroyed overnight?
- That is unallowable and deterrent. Such state is the best indicator of how much more we have to do in order to become a democratic society.
Is there a political will to pass the Privacy Protection Act? - If that will exists, then it is well hidden. It is about a very important thing. In the last study of the EU Commission it has been acknowledged that the protection of personality data exists only as a theoretical phenomenon, and practically doesn't. That is a warning which can not be ignored, and on which one should react without delay. It is incomprehensible that the authors of the Constitutional Law haven't paid any attention to this issue. In the expert circles there is already a model for such a law. It should be discussed, maybe further developed and adopted. That model would as a starting base of the mechanism for protection of rights, already established Service of the Commissioner for Information. Actually, in that way we would in this field continue following the Slovenian path, where we have already made the first step by adopting the Law on Free Access to Information. We also have to adopt a myriad of laws and to create efficient, working institutions, and to also develop and strengthen the existing ones, not to rescind them.
Black hole of Europe
Did something change in Serbia regarding secrecy (earlier you spoke that in our country even menus in military canteen are considered to be a secret)?
- Of course that the things have changed, but in any case it was not sufficient. Menus that you mention are fortunately ancient past, but there are still unacceptably many things which are without any justifiable reason labeled as confidential.
How much have you done regarding secret data classification?
- The thing didn't move from the start. I have several times pointed out to the need to pass a modern law on classifying the “confidential” data, when I was warning the responsible persons about the lack of complementary laws. Unfortunately, that was without effect, and currently we are one of a couple of European states that do not have, not modern, by any Data Classification Act. It should be known, because this, besides leaving space for obstinacy and abuses, can in short time become also a very serious problem for communication, that is, for participation in various forms of international integrations.
Ruse in the Constitutional Law
What specifically writes in provision 5 of the Constitutional Law, and what does that mean?
- The provision is written in such a way that only its authors reliably know what they wanted to say. Besides else, it is envisaged to „harmonize with the Constitution, all laws regulating the right of citizens to be informed“, and it is also envisaged that besides some other bodies, selection of the „body in charge of monitoring implementation of the right of citizens to be informed“ should be performed. However, this provision can not be treated outside the context of provision of Article 51 of the Constitution. That Article of the Constitution is called „The Right to be informed“and consists of two paragraphs that, although it on the first glance does not look that way, are not interrelated.
- I would start with the second, because I deal with it. It provides the right to access data owned by the body in power. It is about the right of citizens and journalists that find the obligation of the authorities suitable. That right is protected by the Commissioner for Information. I also have personal merits that this right has become constitutional. In the first harmonized version of the Constitution it wasn't existing. Therefore I have publicly intervened last summer, I turned to the members of the Constitutional Board with a letter, and after talking with the Assembly Chairman of that time, I received assurances that the right shall be introduced into the Constitution. And so it was.
How is the role of media defined?
- I do not know at whose intervention the first paragraph has been stipulated afterwards, providing citizens to have the right to be truthfully and completely informed, and that the media are obliged to observe that right. It is about the right suited not by the obligation of the authorities, but by the obligation of the media. I am not sure if I really do know the best why the activity of the media is treated instead of within the context of freedom, in the context of liabilities, and how should one „monitor“implementation of those obligations. In any case, Commissioner is not in charge of that.
- If the idea is „in order to harmonize“ with the Constitution to rescind the Commissioner for Information, and to establish a body that would also deal with the rights from paragraph one and from paragraph two, it is detrimental and useless. That is, it has a value in the sense of opening an auto-mechanic's shop which is simultaneously dentistry office. Although both in one and the other something is improving, that is not done by the same people in the same place. And if someone considers that it is necessary to have the body performing „monitoring“ if the media are correctly, completely and timely informing the public, I think it is obvious that it should be made up from the journalists and media representatives, not the representative of the state power.
