Source: Politika
In “Politika” of 25th May, there is a text by Dragoljub Zarkovic entitled “To Pozega via Strasbourg.” Since I was mentioned in the text in the scope of the function I'm performing, I have an obligation to react to it. Bearing in mind that the function of the Commissioner is, among other things, to protect the rights of journalists, I do not consider it desirable to argue with them. However, I believe that this time I must do so, with the wish to remind people that a good measure and a good taste are important in journalism, too, particularly when a journalist decides to write about a matter he obviously doesn't know too well. For an illustration it is sufficient to see a part of the text in which Mr. Zarkovic, while analysing the events in connection with the (lack of) accessibility of the information from the contract on the construction of the Horgos-Pozega motorway, among other things says the following: “The chance of my seeing that contract is equal to the chance of my playing in the Champion League and scoring the winning goal in the last minute of the match. The problem is, it seems, that Bojan Kostres, Speaker of the Vojvodina Assembly, and Bojan Pajtic, President of the Government of Vojvodina, supported by Rodoljub Sabic, Commissioner for information of public importance, have the same chances. The latter also issued a statement on the occasion a few days ago which is full of entangled, administrative and bureaucratic text, and in which he referred to specific provisions and the general right, but it is clear from such an endeavour that Sabic knocked at Ilic's door in vain and that the contract remains in the minister's safe.”As for the chances of Mr. Zarkovic to play in the Champions League and score winning goals, I agree with him that these are minimal. However, when it comes to his chances of seeing the subject contract, I have both the wish and the obligation to help him in that. I am quite convinced that in compliance with the authorities put at my disposal this is exactly what I'm doing and I believe that his estimate with regards to these chances are proven wrong. The fact that for Mr. Zarkovic the main problem is, as he says, that both representatives of Vojvodina's government and the Assembly, and the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, have the same (minimal) chances of seeing the contract, shows that he is not informed well at all. The Commissioner has no problem seeing that contract. Pursuant to article 26 of the Law on Free Access to the Information of Public Importance, he has the right of insight into each information carrier, which Minister Ilic and his associates never questioned. The special rights of the Province's officials established by other law have not been the subject I've dealt with, for this is not a job of a commissioner for information. Therefore, although the Law on Concessions, in my opinion, among other things grants them the right to information in this dealing, I was not guided by this when I made my decision. I was guided by the right of the public, the right of everybody to know, and in that context for me it was irrelevant whether the appeal had been signed by the Speaker of Vojvodina's Assembly or Mr. Zarkovic, for instance. In the decision which I made, I expressed unambiguously the position that every time when somebody has an exceptionally valuable resource of the country put at his disposal, as in the case of the motorway concession, the public must know under which conditions this has been done and the position that the right of the public to know in the concrete situation clearly preponderates over the reasons of quite an abstract “confidentiality.” Since I assessed that owing to various statements of some officials there might be misunderstandings and vagueness in the public with regards to the execution of the order I had issued and with regards to the “confidentiality” of the agreement, I also subsequently issued a public statement which Dragoljub Zarkovic calls an endeavour for which he claims that “is full of entangled, administrative and bureaucratic text.” As I believe that it is an undisputed right of a journalist to criticise any official, I will refrain from any comments concerning the soundness of this criticism and will call upon the esteemed readers of “Politika” to get acquainted with the contents of the statement at web-site www.poverenik.org.yu. I am rather certain that they will understand it differently than Zarkovic. The statement was not written in a funny and jovial manner, and neither was it written in rhymes. It was written in a dry, legal language, often found repellent by laymen, which is an unavoidable consequence of the fact that the commissioner is dealing precisely with the enforcement of the law and not something else. The Commissioner for information is under obligation to act in compliance with the Law on Free Access to Information, whether they are good or bad, and not in compliance with anybody's notion about his role, including that of Mr. Zarkovic. According to the law, the commissioner only decides about the right. He has no factual possibilities or legal authorities to execute his decisions himself. The body to which the order has been issued is under legal obligation to act upon it and if it does not do so, the Government of Serbia, again according to the law, is under obligation to ensure the execution of the commissioner's decision. I think that it is obvious how different parties treat the law in this case. That's why it is also obvious that Mr. Zarkovic chose this time with full awareness to make irony at the expense of the one who is acting in accordance with the law albeit being weaker through no fault of his own, and refrained from any critical comments regarding the acts of those who do not respect the law, but have the power. It is easier and without any risk, but, at least in my mind's eye, it does not suit a journalist of his calibre.
Rodoljub Sabic, Commissioner for Information, Belgrade
