Critics have slammed Georgian Dream’s expedited bill to create an “independent” anti-corruption agency, claiming it will be subordinate to the ruling party.
In June, the EU celebrated the 12th conditions that Georgia needed to come together to consider the country’s EU candidacy. This included the creation of an independent anti-corruption agency.
According to that draft law With the ruling party beginning fast-track procedures in Parliament on Tuesday, the agency would report to Parliament and the Inter-Agency Anti-Corruption Coordination Council, based in the prime minister’s office.
The legislation also states that candidates to head the agency would be pre-approved by a dedicated commission through a “transparent” selection process.
However, critics throb that the proposals would not ensure that the agency is truly independent from the government.
One of the factors highlighted by opposition groups was that the agency’s chair would be appointed by the prime minister after a review by the commission.
On October 28, Khatia Dekanoidze, a prominent MP for the opposition party United National Movement (UNM), sentenced the version of the law proposed by Georgian Dream.
‘[The anti-corruption agency] absolutely cannot be controlled [PM Irakli] Gharibashvili, himself a suspect [of corruption]. This includes Bidzina Ivanishvili firing him for corruption,” argued Dekanoidze.
Gharibashvili abruptly ended his first tenure in the role in late 2015, a few months after his mentor and former boss at Cartu Bank, billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, specified that he was dissatisfied with some of Gharibashvili’s relatives. This was taken by opposition figures as an indication of possible corruption.
“It’s not just about appointing the head of the agency”
According to Levan Avalishvili, program director of the Tbilisi-based Freedom of Information Development Monitoring Institute (IDFI), the agency’s independence is an important part of the EU’s expectations. However, he stressed that problems with the law extended beyond the PM’s final say on appointing the head of the panel.
“It doesn’t matter who elects the agency’s chair, as the proposed agency is an obscure, new body with no function that doesn’t live up to the recommendation the EU gave us at all,” Avalishvili said OC media.
According to Avalishvili, the main problem is that the proposed agency’s competencies would be limited to coordinating work on Georgia’s anti-corruption strategy and reporting annually to parliament.
Avalishvili stressed that work on the country’s anti-corruption strategy has so far been the function of the inter-agency anti-corruption council in the prime minister’s office.
“So it turns out that this council will simply be transformed into a separate legal entity under public law…these are not reforms!”
Avalishvili noted that the EU recommended Georgia set up a stand-alone agency after highlighting a “very specific list” of issues it had identified in the country.
“The list included, for example, the need to strengthen the asset declaration monitoring system [of officials]the mechanisms to protect whistleblowers, the oversight of political party finances, the need to tackle high-level corruption and to consolidate into one entity all relevant government functions that are spread across different agencies.”
Avalishvili said the current initiative would leave responsibility for auditing financial statements and protecting whistleblowers to the Georgian Civil Service Bureau, auditing political party spending to the Court of Accounts and investigative functions to the anti-corruption agency within the Georgian State Security Service.
