LOTS OF THEM WANT ME OUT OF THE PICTURE
ExpiredI have received disturbing text messages and anonymous letters; there were some serious situations that the competent authorities were informed about, says Serbian Commissioner for Information of Public importance, adding:
Interview: Rodoljub Sabic
Government never stood by me
There is no cooperation between the Security and Intelligence Agency (BIA) and the District Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade. In 2006, the number of complaints received by the Commissioner's quadrupled in comparison to 2005 - there were over 1,800. Every day more and more Serbian citizens seek protection of their right to free access to information and many of them get it, explains Rodoljub Sabic, Serbian Commissioner for Information of Public Importance.
- At the risk of coming across as arrogant, I'll say that I think there are reasons for us to be happy with the qualitative and quantitative indicators of the work of the Information Commissioner Bureau. I don't mean my work only, I mean the work of the entire staff of the Bureau. People from all walks of life have come to us: civilians, NGOs, the media, various companies, political parties and even public authorities. There is practically no subject that hasn't been interesting to the public, but the greatest interest is shown in financial and material public resources, i.e. Budgets and their realization, donations, public procurement, spending, salaries, etc.
How many requests of our citizens have been rejected by public services?
- In more than half of the cases, immediately after the first intervention of the Commissioner, public authorities provide the information, i.e. the copy of the requested document that was previously denied. In other words, with a little bit of good will we could have more satisfied citizens and a better perception of the relation between public authorities and the public, which would reduce administrative work in the Commissioner's Bureau. In other cases, except when a complaint is rejected or turned down, I have to pass a decision by which I order that the requested information is provided. Quite often the authorities act in accordance with the order, but there are a few dozen cases where orders were not followed. Relative to the total number of complaints, we are not talking about a great number, but it's big enough to cause concern.
What can you do in those situations?
- In those situations, the Commissioner has no legal authorities. The law prescribes that the Commissioner's resolutions are legally binding and that the Serbian Government should ensure their execution, if necessary. Unfortunately, in those several dozen cases when citizens asked the Government to ensure that the Commissioner's order is executed, the Government failed to do so. This is a serious problem that is becoming an increasing burden to the implementation of the law.
What sorts of questions have remained unanswered?
- The group of unexecuted resolutions contains most varied questions. Some of them have attracted public attention already, such as those about the number of people whose communications were monitored by BIA, or those about JP Zeleznice Srbije (Serbian Railways) and the procurement of “motley” carriages from Sweden, or those regarding the Belgrade District Public Prosecutor's Office and the investigation of the death of reporter Dada Vujasinovic. Some of them are quite paradoxical: a few cases when the Mayor of Nis denied access to information to no other than the Information Commission of the Municipality of Nis. Then, there are those that are very interesting from the financial aspect, as is the case of the Ministry of Capital Investment and the information about the tender procedure for the bridge at Beska, or about Mobtel. Some questions indicate fundamental lack of understanding of the obligations to the public with regard to public office, such as cases of putting a veil of “official secret” over the information about the income of managers of public utilities or representation expenses (e.g. NIS, PTT Srbija). And finally, some of the questions are so trivial that it is really hard to understand why they were denied access to.
The most intriguing one was the question about the number of people being tapped by BIA. How much progress has been made regarding that matter?
- This case has become quite a curiosity. I passed the resolution on that matter over a year ago at the complaint of the NGO Youth Initiative for Human Rights. I thought that publicising simple statistical information about the total number of persons whose communications were monitored could not jeopardise any legitimate interest. At the same time, the readiness of the Agency to reveal the information would have had a therapeutic effect on our public, considering the latest traumatic experiences with the misuse on the part of secret services. The resolution has not been executed to date although even the Supreme Court has rejected BIA's complaint. A few months ago, the Montenegrin Administrative Court, in the case against the Montenegrin National Security Agency (ANB) quoted the resolution of the Serbian Commissioner , creating an opportunity to make it an “international precedent” if the resolution remained unexecuted in Serbia. And that's what happened. ANB first refused the request, but when the Administrative Court of Montenegro annulled its decision ANB did make public the information about the number of persons that had been tapped and under surveillance. What happened in Montenegro has contributed to the freedom of access to information and civil control of secret services, and it will definitely do no harm to the state security. Their experience will be useful to us, sooner or later. I wish it had been the other way round.
Which government body is easiest to work with and which is the hardest?
- As good examples, I'd single out the Ministry of Science, the Supreme Court of Serbia, District Courts in Belgrade and Novi Sad and a few more. There are a few bad examples, but BIA and the District Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade are top of the list.
Have you ever received threats or been harassed in any other way because of the nature of your job?
- Yes, I have. I received threatening text messages, anonymous letters, there were telephone threats and much more serious stuff. Some of the most serious ones have been reported to the authorities. At the moment, there aren't any. However, when you do this kind of work, those things probably come with the job.
There have been some speculations in the press that you might be relieved of duty at the first session of the new Parliament. Your comment?
- I think it's a result of legally and technically badly written, imprecise and ambiguous provision of Article 5 of the Constitutional Law. This can open up other, far more complex issues regarding the relation between the government and the public. It is still unclear what the writers of that provision actually meant by it, whether its “quality” was intended or accidental. Whatever the case, although this provision does not mention the words “information commissioner” one of the possible interpretations does leave room for those speculations.
Do you suspect who stands behind those speculations? Who wants to see the back of Rodoljub Sabic?
- I don't think there is any particular interest behind those articles. As I said, they are, more or less, a logical result of the content of the provision of Article 5 of the Constitutional Law. Whether there are some “specific” interests behind the provision, as it is - that is another question. I've already mentioned that some versions of the “harmonisations” prescribed by the Constitutional Law might, at least hypothetically, lead to the establishment of relations between the media and the government that are, fortunately, long forgotten.
- The main problem is not that the current Commissioner might step down, but that this institution might be transformed into some indefinite, strangely named “body for the monitoring of exercising citizens' right to information”. I know that some very influential people do not like the idea of me being the Commissioner and I know they would like to see the back of me. However, it makes more sense to assume that this is not - or that this is not only - a personal matter. It is not about Rodoljub Sabic; it's about every commissioner who would insist on persistent application of the law, which would be a problem for some people and some groups. This is why they would be much happier if they amended the law and permanently removed the threat that the commissioner presents for their illegitimate interests. This possibility should not be underestimated; there are many people who wish to keep their exclusive positions, to hide their irresponsibility, incapacity and lack of results from the public, as well as misuse and corruption. In any case, we shall soon see the effects of this controversial provision of the Constitutional Law.
What is your cooperation with the Serbian Government like?
- It should be much, much better. It is imperative for good implementation of the Law on Access to Public Information. I have done everything I could on my part, and my conscience is clear. I have formally given initiatives for the resolution of current issues on several occasions, but to no avail.
The Government is yet to establish a mechanism for the execution of the Commissioner's resolution, to activate the available potentials for the education of civil servants, and to set in motion the mechanisms of accountability for law violations. Furthermore, despite my efforts, I did not succeed in persuading the Government to recommend some, for the application of the Law on the Access to Information of Public Importance very important, complementary laws. Here I think of the laws that would govern data classification, personal data protection and handling the dossiers of secret services. It is good that the initiatives regarding the activation of the said mechanisms and new bills have been incorporated in the recently adopted Action Plan of the Serbian Government, with the idea to realise them this year. It is good as it gives hope that the key prerequisites for better application of the law could be created soon. I sincerely hope this happens. Without those prerequisites, the application of the law will be facing an obstacle that no commissioner will be able to eliminate.
: The Balkan Spy Syndrome
Has anything changed in Serbia with regard to secret? On the one hand we have NATO warning that the institutions are leaking confidential information, and on the other that in our country even a military canteen menu is regarded a secret in Serbia?
- We are still lacking a modern Data Classification Act and the situation in this area is really bad. Instead of creating a more or less type law, such as those that exist in all countries that wanted or want to be included in Euro Atlantic integration, we have created legal confusion. Both in normative solutions and in practice, conservative, outdated viewpoints are maintained, they even dominate. There are lots of cases where what is not supposed to be secret is hidden behind the label of secrecy. The reasons for this are various: from the wish to protect utterly illegitimate interests, through the wish to keep the obtained, untouchable positions, to the mystifications caused by the “Balkan spy” syndrome. Instead of having one law that answers the questions such as: what exactly can be a secret, whose decision is it, for how long, who supervises it, who and under what conditions can revoke the status etc. we have a pile of often contradictory regulations. Joining Partnership for Peace will speed up the resolution of this problem, but we should really work on it even without the Partnership.
QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN UNANSWERED
How many people are there in Serbia whose communications are being monitored by BIA?
How did JP Zeleznice Srbije procure the “motley” carriages from Sweden?
What had really happened to the reporter Dada Vujasinovic?
What is the real truth in the Mobtel case?
How did the tender procedure for the Bridge at Beska go?
What are the managers' salaries in public utilities (NIS, PTT, etc)?
Many reasons for concern
Are you satisfied with the work of the Commissioner's Bureau in 2006?
- The Bureau did good work, although it has four times fewer employees than originally planned, although it was approved by the National Parliament. All complaints against the Commissioner's resolution that have been processed so far by the Supreme Court have been rejected or turned down. The Bureau was involved in education and training, published the Legal Guide in Serbian and seven languages of national minorities, contributed to having the guarantee of the right to access information incorporated in the Constitution, etc. It is worth mentioning that we managed to spend rationally. We didn't spend over 60% of the funds allocated from the Budget. Our results got good, in fact very good marks in the reports on the monitoring of the application of the Law on Free Access to Information. They were given by the observers from the non-government sector - OSCE, Council of Europe, EU Commission etc. A pleasant surprise was the annual award that I was presented by the Association of Journalists in Serbia at the end of last year, because when it comes to working in the field of free access to information, what journalists think about it is especially important. Of course, regardless of how the results of the Commissioner and his Bureau are evaluated, they are not the only indicators of the quality of application of the law. As I've said on several occasions, there is more reasons for concern than content.
