Fourteen years of Commissioner for information
The second seven-years mandate of Rodoljub Sabic as a Commissioner for information of public importance expired on December 22nd. His election to that position on December 22nd 2004, as it turned out later, was one of the most important events for the fight against corruption in Serbia.
The Law of free access to information, adopted a month ago, created opportunities for establishing the system for government control by citizens as well as the awareness that citizens are not subject to be ruled over, but the body to which the government is accountable.
However, regardless of its quality, that law could suffer the fate of many others if the institution that will defend this newly acquired right of citizens is not established. Commissioner had no conditions to perform his function for months after the election, and obstructions continued during the subsequent years. That is why the main merit of the first Commissioner is that he did not give up and he was able to establish an institution. Similar problems occurred with the other independent state bodies, which were later established, but every following was easier.
The Law on free access to information is neither solely nor predominantly anti-corruption.
However, in Serbia, the Law has been recognized in that light. Such a development of this situation is due to several circumstances. First is the fact that in Serbia did not exist or do not work effectively other types of control the authorities by the citizens.
Another reason is that exactly anti-corruption civil society organizations, journalists engaged in this topic, political parties that want to prove corruption of their competitions and Government Council for the fight against corruption, were among most common applicants.
Third reason is the fact that Sabic, as a Commissioner, not only consistently resolving complaints related to disclosure of documents on public finances and the use of public property for the benefit of solicitors (which has to be done by further Commissioner who wants to apply the Law correctly), but during his numerous public appearance promoted just the public of information as an instrument for fighting corruption.
His pro-activity, i.e. attempts to resolve important problems, influenced that the right on access to information was defended against numerous attempts to indirectly limit it through the provisions of other laws, by-laws acts and grotesque interpretations. While the political powers tried to restrict the right to access information in the past 14 years by introducing exceptions “on the back door", in the current draft amendment of the Law it is openly suggested that the control of citizens excludes information on the management of several billion Eurosworth of state-owned assets.
Also, the power of the Commissioner and public stopped at the place where the implementation of the law begins to depend on political will. So for those decisions of Commissioner that are not executed in some other way, the execution should be ensured by the Government, but it was not done in any of the hundreds of cases. Where the Government does not do its jobs, there is the National Assembly according to the Constitution that may call for responsibility the Executive authorities. However, there was no will to carry out this constitutional jurisdiction.
