(Podgorica, 2 November 2012) – The information that MANS has obtained by monitoring the abuses of state resources during the election campaign have demonstrated that neither the State Electoral Commission (DIK) or the State Auditing Agency (DRI) want to be involved in processing violations of the relevant laws in this regard. According to the Law on the Financing of Political Parties, only these two institutions are listed as responsible for the implementation of this law. This includes violations of the law relating to the abuse of state resource as well (including: hiring by state and local institutions during elections, the political engagement of bureaucrats during working hours, paid advertising by any state and local institutions in the media and a ban on excessive budgetary expenditures during election campaigns).
Given that both the DIK and DRI have declared themselves not responsible for processing those functionaries that violated the law by using state resources of influence election results, it seems that these individuals will now escape sanction for their abuses. In order to ensure that this gap in implementation does not affect the cases concerned, we’ve also submitted our complaints to the State Prosecutor’s Office.
We believe that the prosecutor can act on two grounds. First, according to the Law on the State Prosecutor, this institution is responsible for processing all violations of the law and is responsible for uncovering punishable violations of the law and those who committed such offences. This means that prosecutors has the capacity to pursue all persons that violated the Law on the Financing of Political Parties during the most recent election campaign (which should result in fines of anywhere between €200 and €2000).
On the other hand, the more serious abuses of state resources and public prerogatives during the election campaign can be categorized as criminal offences (including the abuse of one’s official position and services, which prosecutors are responsible for pursuing and which may include a prison term as part of the sentencing).
Till now, the prosecutor has also proclaimed itself not responsible for monitoring the implementation of the party financing law with respect to the political engagement of public functionaries during working hours. Prosecutors have suggested that we direct our complaints to the DIK, which has already denied that it is responsible for processing such offences. It is worth noting that prosecutors cited the older version of the party financing law. For this reason, we once again directed our queries to prosecutors, informing them of the changes to the law and asking them to once again rule on whose jurisdictional responsibility is the prosecution of offences relating to this law.
Prosecutors have yet to reply to this renewed query and on the question of who is responsible for implementing the ban on state hiring and advertising during the campaign.
When it comes to excessive budgetary expenditures, where the existing party financing law does not specify eventual institutional responsibility for implementation, the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office has informed us that it has forward one – of the many abuses we noted in this regard – to the relevant prosecutor. Nevertheless, there is no word on concrete results of such a move.
