The former Prosecutor General, Arben Rakipi, declared that interventions
at the judiciary system should influence the Constitution and change
the principles on which this system is built.
“The Constitutional predictions for justice do not answer to the current terrain”, says the former leader of the Prosecution, who was invited in Top Channel’s main news edition.
For Arben Rakipi, the Prosecution should intervene in the system and review the appointing method of the Prosecutor General, and the Prosecution should be represented at the High Council of Justice, as he said.
Ilir Paço: You said that the Prosecutors say other things in coffee tables, and other things in the poll. What troubles you more about this seemingly doubled reality?
Arben Rakipi: There is always a difference between the official and personal opinion. My concern is if judges were more open and more reflective when giving their opinion about possible future reforms. The Prosecutors were more reclutant to change the system, which has clearly many problems. This is a closed system, non-transparent, and doesn’t express the public’s interests in general, which should be represented in the Court’s room. This was their main concern which I was able to express in today’s meeting.
Ilir Paço: You have been a former Prosecutor General. What do you think that should change in the Constitution and the law for the Prosecution?
Arben Rakipi: In my opinion, the first important thing is about how the Prosecutor is appointed and discharged, and also his competences. Today’s method have influenced professional hesitation among simple prosecutors who are lacking a deserved career. Secondly, the generation of candidacies and criteria on which the Prosecutor General is appointed are important and should be seen with seriousness. Sometimes they cut the path of important careers or that have been imported from outside the judiciary system. Another important thing is reinforcing the role of the existing collegial institutions. Their existence at the Prosecution should increase. There are other procedural issues, but it is not the case to discuss them here. The role of the highest Prosecutor should be seen wit seriousness and concern.
Ilir Paço: Should the formula for the High Council of Justice change, and how, concretely?
Arben Rakipi: It should have been acceptable. I like the ideas of possible changes at the Prosecution, making the appointing of Prosecutors by the High Council of Justice. They should be part of this system, starting with the participation in the HCJ, and also with the method of appointing or removing Prosecutors. The attachment of the Prosecution in the executive government should be only at a certain level, for not being radical. The maximal access of the government in the Prosecution’s affairs is very important. I have often underlined that we have a moral nonsense that is not concerning anyone. The Minister of Justice is entitled by the Constitution to have access at the Courts’ affairs. He can appoint judges and start disciplinary procedures against them. He can make inspections, but he can do nothing at the Prosecution. It should be the opposite. The Prosecutor is the government’s authority that represents the public interest at court. It cannot be understood without a full access of the executive in the Prosecution’s affairs. I am not saying that the executive should chose the content of the work, but they should chose elements that influence the content of the work and the regulation of careers, creation of infrastructure, organization of budgets, etc. They need access at any cost.
Ilir Paço: What other legal or constitutional changes could be done for a complete and efficient reform of the judiciary?
Arben Rakipi: The amendment issue has a domino effect. No sector or institution can be changed without affecting another. If the Prosecutors will be appointed by the High Council of Justice, logically and legally, it should be foreseen by the Constitution. By changing a principle we create effects in a chain of institutions. But judges qualified judges and prosecutors have more ore less accepted the guessing of changes and make them more compatible with other similar systems. So that the Constitution can be changed very generally, from the formation of the High Council of Justice, the role of the Minister of Justice and President, the High Council of Justice, its competences and those of the Prosecution; the respective procedures through which the justice institutions operate, etc. These should be seen very seriously. These issues were seen with the Constitutional amends of 1998. We need to turn once again, because time has shown that the problems are coming because the new laws are not adoptable to the terrain.
Top Channel
