Connect with us

Sports

Montenegro Assembly Discusses Constitutional Court Candidates Amid Tension

Editorial

Published

on

The Assembly of Montenegro convened on October 30, 2023, to discuss the appointment of judges to the Constitutional Court and to adopt three international agreements. The session has sparked a heated debate, particularly over the candidacies of judges proposed for the court, which has become a focal point of political contention.

Jakov Milatović, the President of Montenegro, has put forth Mirjana Vučinić as his candidate for the Constitutional Court. The Assembly’s Constitutional Committee has nominated two others, Jovan Jovanović and Mirjana Radović. During the session, Milatović expressed concerns about the qualifications of the candidates. He emphasized that the selection of judges should not be influenced by political affiliations and stressed the importance of expertise.

Milatović pointed out the qualifications of both candidates. He noted that Vučinić graduated from law school with an average grade of nearly nine, while Radović’s average was around seven. He highlighted that Vučinić has 35 years of experience in various judicial roles, including two decades as an attorney, whereas Radović has only 15 years of experience, the legal minimum, primarily working in a non-governmental organization. He also mentioned that Vučinić possesses a judicial examination qualification, unlike Radović.

“The Constitution is the foundation of Montenegro, and when it is compromised, everything else falls apart,” Milatović stated, reiterating the necessity of an independent judiciary. He lamented that, despite efforts to change the political landscape in 2020, the same patterns of governance persist today.

Vasilije Čarapić, a member of the Europe Now Movement, remarked on the significance of selecting candidates based on their qualifications rather than political ties. He called this an important moment for Montenegro, expressing confidence that the nominees from the Constitutional Committee are prepared to uphold the civic character of the country, grounded in the rule of law. Čarapić urged fellow lawmakers to support these candidates, asserting, “If the election does not happen today, I am confident it will occur in the second round next month.”

In contrast, Andrija Nikolić, head of the parliamentary group from the Democratic Party of Socialists, criticized the majority in the Assembly for treating the state as a political prize. He pointed to an ongoing constitutional crisis that began last summer when Judge Milorad Gogić met retirement age. Nikolić noted the undemocratic retirement of Judge Dragana Đuranović and highlighted the need for adherence to proper procedures as advised by the Venice Commission.

Nikola Zirojević, a member of the Social Democrats, criticized the lack of consultation with the opposition during the nomination process. He emphasized the necessity of a qualified two-thirds majority support in parliament for the first round of voting, questioning how the parliamentary majority expects to negotiate with the opposition when they cannot agree among themselves. Zirojević suggested that a strategy was in place to secure the necessary support in a second round to appoint politically suitable candidates.

Miloš Konatar, from the Civic Movement URA, expressed his intention to abstain from what he called a “performance” regarding the European path of Montenegro. He insisted on principled discussions instead of political bargaining, emphasizing that previous agreements had been achieved with opposition votes.

The session saw rising tensions as Zirojević called for the presence of the proposers of the candidates in the Assembly. When the request was denied by Vice President Zdenka Popović, Zirojević insisted that the discussion should not proceed without the President’s presence, leading to warnings about his conduct.

The outcome of this Assembly session remains uncertain, with implications for Montenegro’s governance and judicial independence. As political factions navigate this critical juncture, the future of the Constitutional Court hangs in the balance.

Our Editorial team doesn’t just report the news—we live it. Backed by years of frontline experience, we hunt down the facts, verify them to the letter, and deliver the stories that shape our world. Fueled by integrity and a keen eye for nuance, we tackle politics, culture, and technology with incisive analysis. When the headlines change by the minute, you can count on us to cut through the noise and serve you clarity on a silver platter.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © All rights reserved. This website offers general news and educational content for informational purposes only. While we strive for accuracy, we do not guarantee the completeness or reliability of the information provided. The content should not be considered professional advice of any kind. Readers are encouraged to verify facts and consult relevant experts when necessary. We are not responsible for any loss or inconvenience resulting from the use of the information on this site.