OSHC; We call every MP to repeat the competition making sure that transparency and professionalism are primary for the new process
Pristina, 7 JUNE 2021. We the organizations and activists that are written below express our deepest concerns about the irregularities and followed procedures in the selection of the 4th Information and Privacy Commissioner.
The interview panel of the Committee of Security and Defense of the Republic of Kosovo, composed with MP Fatmir Humolli, Shqipe Mehmeti Selimi, Mefail Bajqinovci, Enver Dugolli and Arber Rexhaj from “Lëvizja Vetëvendosje”, Erxhan Galushi from the Progressive Movement of Roma of Kosovo and Slavko Simić from the Serbian List who interviewed the candidates on 7th of June 2021.
For this positions have run Edon Myftari, Enver Bujari, Krenar Këpuska, Krenare Sogojeva Dermaku, Sadik Kryeziu and Sogojeva Dermaku. Sadik Kryeziu left the meeting a couple of minutes before the interview started.
The present MPs rated the candidate Enver Bujari with the most points, overall 69 points, the candidate Krenare Sogojeva Dermaku with 63 points and the candidate Edon Myftari with 61.5 points. Those three names will be sent to the Assembly for voting, after they approve from the Committee of Security and Defense of the Republic of Kosovo. To be a Commisioner, 61 votes are needed overall.
From the direct monitoring of the interviews, we believe that the most rated candidate did not perform as good as the other two candidates. Mr. Bujari has also run in the past processes, but british experts that helped the recruitment process in 2019/2020 did not rate him with enough points and did not recommend him for the Information and Privacy Commisioner position.
As we did before with the other competitions, we analyzed the biography of every candidate and we saw that the biography that Mr.Bujari submitted in this process is not the same as the biography he submitted in other processes before.
Based on the biography he submitted in the year 2019 in the Assembly of Kosovo, Mr.Bujari declared that he was the principal of the narcotics investigation unit in the period 2006-2019, in the biography submitted in the year 2020 he declared that he worked on that position in the period of 2009-2020 while in the biography that he submitted in the year he declared that he worked on that position in the period of 2009-2019. Also, in the other submitted biographies there is discrepancy on study dates. Based on the first and second biography he graduated from the Faculty of Political Science and Public Administration at “Fama” College for two years (2010-2012), whereas based on the third biography he graduated for three years in a whole different period of time(2007-2010). Also, he changed three times the dates on which he did his studies on the field of engineering, including the name of the educational institution. We express our concern that the recruitment panel has not verified this information.
Further, during the interview the panel did not take into account the methodology created by the British experts. Questions were formed without the presence of civil society monitors, unlike the other processes when we were invited to be a part of the process.Also other times the deputies rated in a transparent manner, announcing the evaluation points after each interview and providing justification for the evaluation made. This time the deputies evaluated the candidates anonymously without giving a reason for the points given. In the end, only the total evaluation points for each candidate were announced.
We also reiterate our concern about the composition of the interview panel. At the proposal of the Vetëvendosje Movement, the panel is composed of all members of the Commission and not just one representative of political parties, as is the parliamentary practice. This approach formed a negative precession and has directly affected the loss of legitimacy of the entire Commissioner’s selection process. The ruling parties have failed to reach a consensus to keep the opposition parties involved. At the same time, we consider that the opposition has an obligation to represent the interests of its own voters by participating in the Assembly and giving its contribution.
Based on what was said above, we consider that this process has been non-transparent in the development of its activities and unprofessional in interviewing, for which, it should not continue. We call on the members of the Assembly to repeat the competition, ensuring that transparency and professionalism are the values of the new process.
FOL
Flutura Kusari
GLPS
KDI
KCSF
Çohu
D4D
GAP