The Vice President of the Democratic Party of Socialists, Jevto Eraković, assessed that the proposed law is pushing Montenegro backwards and that it is tailored to the wishes of one political group in power.
"The law encourages repressive methods that are not present in a democratic world, inquisitions and the creation of commissions that will determine who is capable of doing the job. Disciplinary instances are ignored and what is a characteristic of a democratic society is suspended and a repressive system is introduced that has the motive to instill fear in employees and create a party-friendly police force," Eraković said.
He warns that the Law on the Constitutional Court can be misused as a mechanism for various purposes ahead of the parliamentary elections in May next year.
"The very idea that the Law is in line with the EC is also evidenced by their comments. Let anyone from the government tell us that the Law will not be amended and we will understand their motives to some extent. This is a weapon in the fight against those who do not suit them. Whoever has any burden in the service should not perform these functions and I agree with that, but for someone to judge directly whether someone is suitable or not, that is the decision of the regime in North Korea today, and I guess we will not strive for those ideals," Eraković pointed out.
Social Democrat MP Nikola Zirojević criticized the constitutionality of the law, emphasizing that the proposed provisions lose the presumption of innocence and create a situation in which sanctions come into effect before a person can prove their innocence.
He explained that the retroactive effect of the law is not legal logic but an elementary irregularity, and that the unclear definition of contact with persons of operational interest leaves room for abuse.
"It doesn't take much legal knowledge to see that it is not constitutional, the presumption of innocence is lost and a person is put in a situation where you label him as guilty and only after that he proves whether he is guilty or not," Zirojević points out.
He says that it is not specifically defined what constitutes contact with a person of operational interest.
"Whether it is continuous or some other contact. To that extent, everything is undefined and leaves room for abuse, and we noticed this in practice even before this Law," Zirojević said.
Jovan Subotić from the Europe Now Movement said that he did not agree with the opposition's position and that he would not view "that Law so dramatically."
He pointed out that the changes are in line with EU practices and are necessary for the completion of accession negotiations in chapters 23 and 24, and that this requires major changes and steps forward by our country.
"The law is not dramatic. There will be changes, but I don't see this as dramatic and I think the government will use these legal possibilities fairly," Subotić is convinced.
When asked how he comments on Miodrag Laković's departure from the party, he says that Laković could have expressed his opinion without leaving.
"PES is a movement in which differences of opinion are allowed and he did not have to make that move, although he did it in a correct manner. He is not just an MP, but a man with an important biography in that sector and some of the things he stated should of course be taken into account when the Law is adapted, but he could have remained part of the club. He and I had no connection other than human and we will continue to cooperate in that direction," Subotić emphasized.
State Secretary of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Dragana Stanišić-Kažanegra, believes that the opposition either did not study the new provisions of the document well or distorted the facts.
She said the changes were well communicated and necessary to strengthen the integrity of the system.
"This law has been in the process for a long time and the public is aware of it. Such an amendment brings progress and seriousness in cleaning up the system. Vetting only exists in the Ministry of the Interior, and it should be in the entire public administration," she pointed out.
Stanišić-Kažanegra explained that Article 62 does not abolish disciplinary proceedings.
"They exist and are implemented when it comes to violation of work obligations. The existence of a security obstacle is not a violation of work obligations, it is examined when they establish an employment relationship with the Police Directorate and this is a general condition. Once it is determined that this obstacle exists, the general condition ceases to apply. These obstacles are divided into minor and major. Minor ones are those that relate to unauthorized contacts with persons who are members of criminal groups, etc. Article 21 defines how sources can be spoken to and this is provided for by law. When it is done in an unauthorized manner, then it is not allowed," she explained.
She said that those who are in cahoots with criminals will not have police powers and will not be able to work with secret information.
He says that the opposition's claims that this is a police purge are unfounded.
She also explained how the commission for checking security violations was formed and said that it consists of police officers and those from internal control.
"Their integrity is defined by law, and the previously formed commissions did not bother the opposition, and they were also formed by the Minister of Internal Affairs," concluded Stanišić-Kažanegra.
