საერთო ცხელი ხაზი +995 577 07 05 63
LAW ENFORCEMENT /
Statement
A change in the procedure for the appointment of the General Prosecutor is much needed for the agency's independence and neutrality
The dismissal of issues related to the election of the General Prosecutor from the draft constitutional law once again demonstrates that the ruling power does not want to reduce its political influence over the law enforcement and judicial systems. This decision jeopardizes the prospect of democratization and political impartiality of the Prosecutor's Office.
The April 19 accord required political parties, among other things, to amend the rules for the selection of General Prosecutor. The agreement stipulated that, as a general rule, the parliament should decide on the appointment of the Prosecutor General by a three-fifths majority, and, only in exceptional cases, by a simple majority (if three-fifths of the deputies cannot reach an agreement on a particular candidate). After the April 19 agreement was annulled, the amendments to the rule for the appointment of the General Prosecutor will no longer be heard by the Parliament, and the Parliament will no longer vote on the new rule, according to a statement from Georgian Dream's chairperson on September 6.
The General Prosecutor’s Office is the most important link in the judiciary. It is the only agency in the country with prosecutive authority. At the same time, the prosecution has a significant impact on the quality and comprehensiveness of the investigation of cases. Directly within the agency, the General Prosecutor has virtually unlimited powers and can influence the strategic issues regarding the agency's management, in general, as well as the specific individual cases. Against this background, it is critically necessary for the General Prosecutor’s appointment process to be transparent and fair, and the pollicization of the issue and decision-making based on narrow party interests are prevented.
Unfortunately, the current rules for the selection and appointment of the General Prosecutor do not meet these requirements, and the existing legal framework does not adequately ensure that individuals are appointed to this position because of their professional skills and good faith, and not on the basis of their political loyalty. The existing problems in this regard were not solved by the constitutional reform of 2017-2018 and the consequent changes in the legislation, which turned out to be inadequate and inconsistent to counterbalance the existing challenges. As a result, despite a number of legislative changes in recent years, the political independence and accountability of the prosecution system are still not adequately ensured. The prosecution system remains a politically motivated, closed agency. The Prosecutorial Council is also ineffective, failing to perform its constitutional function due to its fictitious powers and undemocratic rules of staffing, and failing to ensure the independence, transparency, and efficiency of the prosecution.
Despite the existing problems, the state has so far made no attempt to return to the agenda the fundamental reform of the prosecution system. The April 19 agreement allowed the state to commence the discussion on this issue and work on reform ideas amid broad political and public dialogue. Unfortunately, this decision of the ruling political team is another missed opportunity for real reform of the Prosecutor's Office and its establishment as an independent, impartial institution.
Although the draft law prepared as a result of the April 19 agreement outlined the issue of reform relatively narrowly and did not adequately address many of the topics relevant to the reform, with this decision, the State undertook the responsibility to democratically improve the system and, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of sharing Western values in the process of democratization.
This decision by the authorities is all the more unfortunate when we have not heard a substantive explanation, or justification, as to why the Parliament should not proceed with the amendments. With this decision, the Georgian Dream government refuses to develop law enforcement and justice systems and continues to maintain its influence over the Prosecutor's Office.
The Social Justice Center calls on the Parliament of Georgia to resume discussions on systemic reform of the Prosecutor's Office and the judiciary and to take into account the assessments and recommendations of civil society organizations and international partners in this process.
