Speaker Talat Xhaferi is neither a Constitutional Court nor a constitutional judge. He should interpret the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, not the constitutionality of the referendum initiative, professor of Constitutional Law, Gordana Siljanovska-Davkova, told “Pressing TV”, after last night the Parliament Speaker of the Republic of Macedonia, Talat Xhaferi, dismissed the initiative to hold a referendum to cancel the Law on Ratification of the Good Neighborhood, Friendship and Cooperation Agreement with Bulgaria as unconstitutional.
According to Siljanovska, Xhaferi now presents himself as a constitutional judge or as the Constitutional Court.
If that’s the case, then let’s elect Xhaferi instead of Ljubomir Jovevski as a constitutional judge, says Prof. Siljanovska-Davkova.
She is determined that Speaker Xhaferi must respect the procedure and immediately forward the initiative to the two competent parliamentary committees – the Legislative and Legal Committee and the Committee on the Political System. Even if their opinion is negative about the initiative, it must still be on the agenda of the next parliamentary plenary session, which is directly stated in articles 191 and 192 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament.
The same Talat Xhaferi forgets that his signature is behind the referendum question: Are you in favor of EU and NATO membership by accepting the Prespa Agreement. The referendum at that time could not be consultative, because it can only be before the ratification of the Agreement. And, the Agreement was ratified on June 20, 2018, while the referendum took place on September 30. Top world experts on constitutional law commented that the world has never known a more bizarre referendum question in history. But what is the difference, the difference is that then the initiative for the referendum came from the Government, and now it comes from the citizens and therefore does not accept it. The man violates the started procedure right from the start, says Siljanovska-Davkova.
According to her, the constitutionality of the procedure can be assessed only by the Constitutional Court and scientists, and Talat Xhaferi does not belong to either of them.
Siljanovska notes that the Agreement with Bulgaria itself has provisions, which are contrary, for example, to the Treaty of Lisbon or to the agreement establishing the EU, and it provides that one of the two parties can change it or leave it.
Comments are closed for this post.