Source: “Danas”
Interview
Rodoljub Sabic, Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, believes that the logic by which the system operates, its complete subordination to the interests of political parties, hinders problem resolution
“I have witnessed the succession of three different Governments since I first took this office. The two previous ones were unwilling to seriously contribute to the resolution of evident problems in the Commissioner’s work. As regards the current cabinet, one might say their attitude has been rather controversial”, Rodoljub Sabic, Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, explains for “Danas”.
“On the one hand”, he added, “some of the chronic issues have reached culmination point during its term in office; for example, the number of the Commissioner’s rulings that have not been complied with has more than doubled. On the other hand, in preparing the 2010 budget, the Government made a u-turn from its previously rigid position and allocated the largest amount of budget appropriations so far for the operations of this institution. Moreover, in my recent talks with Prime Minister Cvetkovic in connection with all outstanding issues we agreed on the way forward in resolving the majority of them. If the Government honours our agreement, that would be the largest step taken so far in eliminating problems with the implementation of the Law on Free Access to Information.
- In your opinion, what is the main reason for the Government’s non-cooperation with the non-governmental sector and its reluctance to appoint persons without a political party background as incumbents of offices in control institutions?
- Things should be neither oversimplified nor generalised. Generally, and not only regarding candidates for public offices, cooperation between the Government and the non-governmental sector needs to be improved. As regards incumbents in office, the Commissioner for Information is not a member of any political party, and neither is the Obudsman; then there is the chairperson, I believe all committee members and the Director of the Anti-corruption Agency and the Director of the Public Procurement Agency, to name but a few. But, of course, the reality is that many are trying to place political party interests above and before all. Sometimes this is just a matter of inertia, done almost by default. Sometimes it is personal or group interest masquerading as political party interest. Be that as it may, one thing needs to be clear. We cannot pretend to be in transition. If we want the government to be controlled by independent institutions, then those institutions must be headed by competent and independent individuals. By “independent” I do not mean just persons who are formally not affiliated with any political party. And when it comes to “recognition” of such individuals, feedback coming from the civil sector, NGOs, professional associations, trade unions etc. is vital. Whatever lies behind the idea that it is possible to create “cosmetic”, “screen” institutions, it is basically a serious delusion, clearly conflicting with the country’s interest in EU integration and thus detrimental to the interests of the majority of Serbia’s citizens.
- What motivation do you think lies behind the Government’s decision to refuse to appoint Mr. Goran Miletic as Commissioner for Equality?
- I think it is not wise to turn this case into a staffing issue. In my opinion, this harmful confrontation between the government and NGOs, followed by another confrontation within the civil sector, could have and should have been avoided. This should remind us of the need to stipulate in minute detail all elements of legislative provisions governing the candidacy and appointment of heads of independent institutions. Candidates should be chosen on the basis of clearly defined criteria and universally recognised results, in full view of the public and in a constructive and democratic atmosphere, rather than an atmosphere of confrontation.
- What do you see as the main problems faced by your Office and what are the reasons for those problems?
- The volume of work of the Commissioner’s Office is constantly increasing; however, until as late as April 2009, our staff consisted of only five civil servants. By the end of the year, we had 11 instead of the envisaged 69 members of staff. Thus, the issue of extreme understaffing is probably the most apparent one. However, even if this issue had been resolved, the Commissioner would still not have been able to ensure efficient enforcement of the law. Quite simply, the Commissioner does not have at his disposal certain crucial instruments. His rulings are binding under the law, but he has no mechanisms available to ensure their enforcement. Meanwhile, the Government, which has such instruments at its disposal, fails to use them. Although it is required under the law to “enforce the Commissioner’s rulings where necessary”, it has virtually never taken recourse to an enforcement measure.
The situation is similar regarding infringement liability of those who break the law; this mechanism operates merely as a symbolic measure. Obviously, these and other things will have to change. Causes of problems and obstacles to problem resolution are too numerous to be named in the limited space you have available. One of them is certainly the logic by which the system operates, its complete subordination to the interests of political parties. Those who are truly independent have virtually no influence in such a system. Thus, even issues that could be resolved fairly easily for them become insolvable.
- Could you quote a situation in which a request made by your Office to government bodies that was not answered, as a true example of the government’s attitude to public interest, i.e. the interests of Serbian citizens?
- One case I found particularly interesting was the so-called “road mafia”. Following a complaint by a whistleblower in the public enterprise “Putevi Srbije” (Serbian Roads), who was dismissed for this, I ordered the public disclosure of a document that would conclusively confirm the allegations and, of course, stop the robbery that was going on at toll booths. Public enterprise “Putevi Srbije” failed to act on my order, although it is binding for the enterprise, and the Government, although required under the law to “enforce the Commissioner’s rulings where necessary”, has done nothing to actually enforce my order.
Probably the most striking case last year was the denial of access to information on ten largest debtors to the Republic of Serbia. Whatever led the Ministry of Finance to deny public access to information on entities that grossly violated their tax and other obligations, it clearly has nothing to do with legitimate public interest.
- In your experience, which ministries and public institutions are the most problematic in terms of transparency and working in the public interest?
- Unfortunately, quite a number of public authorities do not honour their duties under the Law on Free Access to Information. However, in the previous year at least, the Ministry of Finance particularly “stood out” in the negative sense.
