The Institute for Political Studies (ISP) with the support of the Civil Society Program for Albania and Kosovo, funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and managed by the Kosovo Foundation for Civil Society (KCSF) in partnership with Partners Albania for Change and Development (PA) is implementing the project “Clean Parliament: Accountability and Transparency”. The project implementation period is January 2019 – April 2020. This is the fourth project report covering the period January – April 2020.
MAIN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (IV)
Based on the overall assessment of the progress of ISP monitoring (January 2019-April 2020), we can state maintain that the legal, procedural and ethical basis for the integral implementation of the Code of Conduct and Prevention of Conflict of Interest in the Assembly has been established. For the first time, several MPs have faced court proceedings and disciplinary measures based on the provisions of the Code of Conduct. In addition to these undoubtedly positive developments, also a register of cases of conflict of interest was put in place. The positive balance is there, yet it is still modest. Nonetheless, it is a stable and reference basis for future growth.
The current parliamentary session was dominated by the state of emergency (state of natural disaster is expected to cover the period December 2019 -June 2020), especially by the Covid-19 pandemic situation. This called for the application of new parliamentary practices. The transition to online activity and the enforcement of physical distance came at the cost of the violation of the standards of transparency, consultation and public accountability. This should serve as an impetus to draft new protocols to face similar situations in the future, so as to avoid the experimental nature of the solutions adopted during 2020.
The Assembly, in spite of the extraordinary situation, has tried to respect, as far as possible, the principles of the Code of Conduct and the provisions on the Conflict of Interest, – an indication that already, the established mechanism is accepted as standard and may continue to be a point of referral for improvements in the future.
In the period January-April 2020 there was only one new declaration in the Register of Conflict of Interest. There have been no other allegations of conflict of interest based on our monitoring of the parliamentary activity.
The amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly (2019) require that each parliamentary group should have its own rules of procedure. The ISP has assisted new parliamentary groups and MPs interested in incorporating into their internal regulations the new standards for the prevention of the potential situation of conflict of interest. This is a positive development for the parliament, for the parliamentary groups and for the integral implementation of the Code of Conduct across the board.
The monitoring of the Assembly shows that whenever fierce political debates happen to pass in the Assembly, the deputies and the Assembly tend to avoid the ethical rules of communication and the practices defined in the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly. Several flagrant cases of insulting, denigrating, sexist or discriminatory language, which in normal situations could be considered as elements deserving immediate punishment under the Code of Conduct, were tolerated during the current session in the name of the need to focus on the agenda and parliamentary decision-making. In the future such practices deserve much more attention and so as to be addressed with the same standards.
The trial proceedings continue on one case that was identified by ISP and HIDAACI in relation to a situation of conflict of interest and on the possible incompatibility of such situation with the parliamentary mandate. This is the first case that is actually filed with the court, while the Assembly, as a party in the process, should have initiated internal verification procedures, a practice which has not been followed which it did not follow until April 2020.
During 2019-2020, at least two other cases related to conflict of interest were identified: in the first case, HIDAACI addressed ISP reports on conflict of interest and incompatibility of mandate for a deputy. In the other case, HIDAACI addressed a significant violation of ethical practices related to an appointment by the Assembly. Both cases were forwarded by HIDAACI to the Assembly with a request to conduct internal evaluations through its monitoring structure. By the end of April 2020, the Assembly had failed to respond or to take action on both cases , and there is no evidence that it has addressed them through its responsible structure. The concern raised earlier by the ISP that the responsible administrative structures in the Assembly do not have sufficient power to adjudicate cases of conflict of interest of MPs or facilitate the decision-making of the Assembly, proved to be correct in the two cases cited above.
At the end of 2019 ISP conducted a survey with women MPs and then, in March 2020 conducted a training with them to address the identified training needs. One of the aspects touched upon by the training were issues related to the Code of Conduct, ethical standards and good practices of representation in parliamentary activity. The survey data showed that differently from the good practice of training of the “old” MPs on the Parliamentary Regulation, a part of the MPs (especially the new MPs) have not received the necessary training from the Assembly and do not sufficiently recognize the responsibilities arising from the Regulation and Code of Conduct.
The ISP monitoring of the last parliamentary session (January-April 2020) showed that there were no additional declarations of deputies in the Register of Gifts or in the Register of Declarations in relation to participation in activities organized by third parties. In the first case the information and denunciations of suspected cases are missing. In the second case, the practice of declaration continues to be incomplete, as the monitoring of the activity of the MPs has identified numerous cases of participation of the deputies in the activities of third parties that remain undeclared in the Register.
During the project implementation period of January-April, at least one MP was penalized for unethical behaviour in the Assembly, pursuant to the Code of Conduct. Two cases denounced in December 2019 were not addressed by the Assembly during 2020 as it was been done with similar cases before.
The approval by the Assembly of some acts related to the Normative Acts of the Council of Ministers was carried out without in-depth verification of possible cases of conflict of interest. The ISP data showed that in these cases there were sufficient indications investigate into possible conflict of interest, for example, when an MP voted in favour of some normative acts proposed by the government, which were followed by the compulsory quarantine accommodation of some citizens coming from abroad within COVID-19 measures in the hotel he owns.
The positive practice of cooperation with HIDAACI during 2019 showed that if there is a positive approach by the institutions, there are sufficient legal guarantees to fulfil the legal obligations in cases of conflict of interest. If in a suspected case HIDAACI investigated and undertook criminal investigations according to the law, in another suspected case during 2020 HIDAACI followed another standard – it did not conduct investigations, but forwarded the documentation to the Assembly to make its assessments. In the absence of a reaction from the Assembly, HIDAACI also did not react. Such positive and negative experiences highlight the need for the standardization of work by institutions responsible for addressing conflict of interest, including HIDAACI and the Assembly.
In the period January-April 2020, few cases of statements and denunciations in the media and public about possible cases of conflict of interest by MPs were recorded. However, even in these cases, the Assembly did not engage in their verification, and the practice in place was not respected. According to this practice, in the first session, the MP must clarify his position on accusations of a possible conflict of interest. The Assembly as an institution, but also the parliamentary groups may need to be more involved in the implementation of this obligations arising from the Code of Conduct and the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly.
The full report you can find:
