By Evarist Stoja, BIRN
There is a surefire way in Albania to approve something difficult to defend: wrap it in the European flag. Call it "approximation with the acquis", say "it is an obligation coming from Brussels" and half of the critics give up before they even start... Because who is the brave one who will go against Europe?!
Thus came Article 72 of the new draft law “On the Bank of Albania”. This draft law stipulates that the governor and deputy governors cannot be arrested or searched without the prior authorization of the Constitutional Court, except when caught “in flagrante delicto”. And if the Constitutional Court does not express its opinion within two weeks, according to the draft law it is considered as if it has said “No!”. The draft law calls this “special procedural protection”. In practice, it creates a special obstacle to arrest. It is essentially immunity from arrest.
And the reasoning is that this is how we get closer to Europe. The report itself claims this: the personal independence of the bank is, according to it, “in line with European standards”. It’s just that the only European source it cites on this – Article 14.2 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks – refers to dismissal from office, not arrest. Not a single European source is cited on immunity from arrest.
Europe protects the governor's position from politics, not his person from the police. This is precisely one of the most flagrant cases of misuse of the name of Europe. To verify this, it is enough to dismantle the “European costume” in which this draft law is dressed. In it, everything that is truly European – participation in the European system of central banks, not taking orders from the government, protection of the governor's mandate – comes clearly marked with the words “after accession to the European Union”. Only immunity from arrest does not await any accession. It comes now, immediately, but with nothing European except the label.
Does Europe require this article? No. It requires that the central bank be independent and that the governor not be dismissed on the whims of the day by permanent caprices. European standards do not require a country to make its governor immune from arrest for ordinary criminal offences. So true is this that when Latvian authorities arrested their governor for bribery, the Union’s highest court ruled that European law protected the governor’s independence but did not prevent prosecution for suspected corruption.
Kush ia qepi këtë “kostum evropian” Bankës së Shqipërisë? Projektligjin e hartoi vetë Banka e Shqipërisë. Në relacionin që shoqëron projektligjin thuhet shprehimisht: “Projektligji është hartuar nga Banka e Shqipërisë dhe propozohet nga Ministria e Financave.” Me fjalë të tjera, neni 72 nuk ra si rrufe në qiell të hapur – Banka e Shqipërisë e shkroi vetë mburojën për drejtuesit e saj.
Ka edhe një hollësi tjetër që thotë shumë. Guvernatorin e propozon Presidenti dhe e miraton Kuvendi. Por dy zëvendësit e tij nuk kalojnë nga Kuvendi: guvernatori ia propozon Këshillit Mbikëqyrës nga radhët e vetë Këshillit, dhe Këshilli i miraton, duke thjesht e njoftuar Kuvendin për vendimin. Kur Këshilli voton zëvendësguvernatorët, ai gjithashtu voton se kush brenda tij do të mbrohet nga ky nen. BSH shkroi ligjin dhe drejtuesit e BSH-së janë përfituesit.
Pyetja nuk është nëse guvernatori duhet të mbrohet nga presioni politik. Për këtë s’ka asnjë dyshim. Pyetja është nëse kjo mbrojtje duhet të zgjerohet edhe në një pengesë të posaçme ndaj drejtësisë penale. Në mbrojtje të tij jepen dy përgjigje. E para se s’është imunitet por mbrojtje nga arbitrariteti. E dyta se i duhet stabilitetit financiar. Të dyja tingëllojnë bindëse deri në momentin kur i sheh me kujdes. Aktualisht, kur prokuroria kërkon të arrestojë një qytetar, masën e cakton gjykata e zakonshme. Projektligji fut mbi të Gjykatën Kushtetuese – gjykatën që gjykon kushtetutshmërinë e ligjeve, jo arrestimet, dhe që mund ta pengojë arrestimin thjesht duke mos u shprehur për dy javë. Një arrestim që duhet t’i kalojë një gjykate të posaçme – e cila mund të thotë “Jo” thjesht duke heshtur – prodhon në praktikë efektin e një imuniteti procedural. Sido që ta etiketosh.
Arsyetimi i dytë është se imuniteti i duhet stabilitetit financiar – se hetimi apo arrestimi i një guvernatori do të trondiste tregjet dhe sistemin financiar. Stabiliteti i një sistemi financiar nuk varet nga paprekshmëria e një personi, por nga institucione që funksionojnë me rregulla e me pasardhës. Kjo u pa te rasti i shkarkimit të guvernatorit të mëparshëm të BSH-së ku përveç “tronditjes mediatike”, nuk pati tronditje në stabilitetin financiar. U pa edhe në Letoni – një guvernator që ulej në tryezën e euros u arrestua për korrupsion dhe euro s’pësoi asgjë.
According to media reports, the Special Prosecution Office is investigating the governor of the Bank of Albania, suspected of delayed and inappropriate measures against the predatory microcredit scheme that robbed about thirty thousand citizens. Thirty thousand were robbed under the watchful eyes of the Bank of Albania. Entire families were forcibly removed from their homes and left homeless, their houses were sold at auction in an abusive manner, and the supervisor is being investigated for turning a blind eye. A law is now being drafted that would clothe with immunity the very post that the judiciary is under investigation. This is not about anyone's guilt or innocence - that, as in any civilized country, is decided by the court. The bad thing is that immunity takes away the court's last word in the middle of an investigation. A central bank loses trust not when it allows the prosecution of a suspect, but when it prevents the law from acting against its officials as against any other citizen. For years, the country has been moving towards reducing immunities. Article 72 is completely in the opposite direction and seeks to increase immunities precisely now when investigations are approaching high-ranking state figures.
Article 72 is not the only one in this draft law that is trying to pass in “European costume”. Article 68 gives the bank the right to declare a range of information secret and deny the Commissioner for the Right to Information the final say on it – again, because “that’s how Europe does it”. The truth is that even the confidential administrative actions of the European Central Bank are not exempt from the scrutiny of the European Ombudsman.
The Ministry of Finance and the Albanian Parliament now have a golden opportunity to show that public consultation has meaning and value. They just need to remove the absurd provisions on immunity. If the concerns raised by lawyers, economists, and citizens are heard and Article 72 is repealed, then this has been a real consultation. Otherwise, both of these institutions will be nothing more than supporters of a show that will do nothing to change the culture of impunity.
Article 72 is a domestic shield against domestic justice, written locally by those who seek to wear it. In Riga, justice did its job. In Tirana, a wall is being built to prevent justice from doing that job. Both, we are told, are done in the name of Europe. One of them is a lie.
Evarist Stoja is Professor of Finance at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom.
