Politics waits for the SPO to bleed to death


The court decision on the possible abolition of the house arrest measure for the defendants in the case “Imperia” Orce Kamcev and Saso Mijalkov, which according to the information, can be brought today, according to legal experts, must not be based on the principal legal opinion of the Supreme Court regarding the deadline in which the SPO can submit and take charges.

The lawyers of Mijalkov and Kamcev submitted the request for the abolition of the measures of detention and house arrest with the explanation that the detention measure was pronounced by the SPO, which the Supreme Court considers now unauthorized in order to extend the investigations and charges initiated after June 30, 2017, as stands in the law on SPO.

The country’s highest court last week came up with the idea that the 18-month time limit for prosecutions and investigations should be considered by the SPO from the moment the so-called “bombs’ were taken over, and not from each individually from the taking of each case from the regular prosecution.

The former Supreme Court President Dane Iliev and former Prosecutor Aleksandar Nakov have an opposite opinion. In a statement for Nezavisen vesnik/Independent daily newspaper, both argue that it is of utmost importance for the court to have a correct and consistent application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is of primary importance in the conduct of proceedings.

“We are talking about a factual matter. Cases are determined one by one. It is important when the materials were taken over, since then the deadline for investigations and charges has begun. The guiding principle of the Supreme Court must not have any impact on whether the measure of house detention should be extended to the defendants or it should be abolished. The court should decide on the facts and circumstances that it has before itself,” Iliev emphasizes.

Former Prosecutor Aleksandar Nakov also thinks that the law applies individually to each SPO case.
“Investigations can be conducted absolutely and file charges for the cases being taken, as in the case “Imperia”, about seven or eight months ago,” says Nakov.

Subjective views of an exceptionally important problem in which the politics is deeply involved, and out of which the SPO originated, cause irritation in the public. The question of whether the SPO, which turns into a kind of a “voodoo doll”, could conduct new investigations and charges, transferred to the Prosecutor’s Office and the Parliament. The Supreme Court’s latest decision is just the latest episode of the legal-political Rashomon effect that threatens euthanasia of the institution in which the public has so much confidence.

The Criminal Court asks the Chief Public Prosecutor, Ljubomir Joveski, to state which prosecutor’s office may in the future act as an authorized plaintiff in the cases submitted by the SPO. At the same time, the court requires Joveski to initiate an authentic interpretation of Article 22 of the Law on the SPO of the Parliament, since only the legislator can give an authentic interpretation of the Laws.

“Until the State Public Prosecutor has been heard whether the cases will remain in the jurisdiction of the SPO or will be taken over by the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime and Corruption, the Basic Court Skopje 1 – Skopje shall act in all cases in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Criminal Procedure, after the expiration of the deadline for which the Supreme Court has given time, which are urgent and urgent will be decided by the competent criminal councils in order not to unnecessarily delay,” the Criminal Court said.

The legal opinion of the Supreme Court is binding only for the councils of this particular court, and not the Criminal. However, if the court verdicts eventually reach a decision before the Supreme Court, they will inevitably be subject to the already given legal opinion.

“Anyone can submit an initiative for authentic interpretation, but for me it’s strange that such an initiative is requested by the PPO, and it does not initiate the SPO itself, which was created by a special law. This is an oversight, in my opinion. What is important to emphasize is that the possible interpretation of the Legislative Committee of the Legislature makes the Supreme Court’s principal opinion null and void,” says Nakov.

After the Supreme Court’s opinion, Joveski said that the decision is unsuccessful in the current practice. The Supreme Court interprets something that the Assembly should do, since it should decide on specific cases. Asked if the Public Prosecutor’s Office would take over the investigations that are now endangered in the SPO, Joveski stated: “If it’s necessary, we will talk with the SPO prosecutors and take over the investigations”.

Parliament Speaker Talat Xhaferi has the same position.
“The Supreme Court has engaged in an interpretation of the Law on the Special Prosecutor’s Office without having any jurisdiction. Only the Assembly or the Constitutional Court has the competence for such an interpretation. I have been involved in politics for thirty years. For the first time, the Supreme Court is about to engage in an interpretation of a law without prior consultation with the Assembly or the Constitutional Court,” Xhaferi said.

According to legal experts, such statements by senior political officials are merely misguiding the public, since politics has long left the SPO wounded and bleed out to death.
“Also the handover of cases, of which we now hear there is an opportunity of happening, must not turn into a bargain. This is solved by a law that must be adopted urgently. Let the public be asked how it was possible to get a 2/3 majority on the amnesty for the violent events on April 27 in the Parliament, and the lawful future of the SPO cannot be solved. Why the parties are silent. It is well known who is the president of the Supreme Court, a person called “Jovo Prevara (Jovo the Fraud)”, but obviously there is a wider circle of personal interests. The creators of the “hole” for SPO are many,” said Nakov.
The decision of the Supreme Court, as it was published, implies that all new forms of the SPO are becoming invalid: for “Imperia” (against Mijalkov, Kamcev and a dozen others), “Census” (against Gruevski and Ahmeti), “Patient” (against Bujar Osmani as a former Healthcare minister), “Harmony” (against Nikola Gruevski, Mile Janakieski and Stevco Jakimovski), “Drumarina” (for Silvana Boneva), “Roentgen” (against Nikola Todorov), “Powerman” (for Milososki), “Actor” and many more. Among them is “Thaler”, the capital object for illegal financing of VMRO-DPMNE and for illegal construction of party headquarters. The first hearing is scheduled on February 18. The General Secretary of the Government, Kiril Bozinovski, former Minister of Transport and Communications Mile Janakieski, MP Ilija Dimovski and Leko Ristoski will have to sit in the dock. Former Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski and Elizabeta Cingarovska are charged in this procedure, who last year admitted guilty and received a suspended sentence, which shows the whole legal-political absurdity, which must be solved as soon as possible.

“It does not matter in which form the Special Public Prosecutor’s Office (SPO) will function, there are solutions, what is important is to have a political will to continue the procedures that it has raised and undertakes. This will probably happen with a new law, it must be resolved, by direct provisions or with transitional provisions, to decide what will happen to the cases taken over by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the materials it possesses. It would be most reasonable for the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime to take them over,” said Iliev, who said that the existence of the SPO was brought into question.

Part of the legal experts fear that if the cases go to the Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office they will disable the use of the so-called “bombs”, especially where they are evidence that is crucial to link the committed illegal actions with unlawfully recorded conversations. Regardless of what they say, with the decision of the Court of Appeal and the entire practice of the European Court of Human Rights, unlawfully wiretapped materials are evidence in court proceedings, regardless of which prosecutor files the charges, regular or special.

Naum Kotevski