Interpellation is a relatively new mechanism of parliamentary oversight. Despite the fact that the new mechanism created an additional opportunity to increase the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight, the Minister of Internal Affairs had not been summoned to the Parliament through the interpellation procedure from 2019 to 2022. However, in 2023, on the initiative of the parliamentary opposition, Vakhtang Gomelauri arrived at the Parliament twice through the interpellation procedure.

The faction United National Movement - United Opposition - Strength in Unity used the interpellation mechanism and summoned Minister of Internal Affairs Vakhtang Gomelauri to the Parliament relating to the Shovi tragedy. The faction sent questions to the Minister on August 14.[1] Gomelauri arrived at the plenary session of the Parliament on September 22 (Friday). The answers of the Minister of Internal Affairs posted on the website of the Parliament are dated the same day.[2]

Both the questions sent to the accountable person and the answers submitted in writing are posted on the website of the Parliament. The United National Movement - United Opposition - Strength in Unity sent 5 questions to the Minister of Internal Affairs:

1. What were the hindering factors that prevented the introduction of the early warning SMS system? 2. Why did the rescue operations start 3 hours late? 3. On what basis did the Government decide not to ask foreign countries to help in search and rescue operations? 4. What is the condition of the rescue equipment of the Emergency Management Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and how compatible is it with international standards? 5. What circumstances made the State refuse to purchase two search and rescue helicopters (HUEY II) with a grant? Was the Ministry of Internal Affairs involved in the said decision making process and what was the official position of the Ministry?[3]

 

According to the Minister, the rescue efforts were launched immediately, rescuers were on the spot in 28 minutes, heavy equipment arrived in one hour and helicopters - in three hours. He noted that the action of the relevant services was the most optimal considering the unfavourable meteorological conditions and terrain of the region of Racha. Vakhtang Gomelauri also noted that it was impossible to save people caught in the landslide, even if they had acted more quickly or in a more organized way, and that there was no need for additional assistance, which is why they did not ask neighboring countries to help.

The Minister of Internal Affairs excluded his responsibility in terms of the introduction of the early warning SMS system as well. According to the Minister: "Sending a notification about the existing danger by the 112 Service to people in a dangerous area should be preceded by appropriate expert studies, forecasting and disaster risk assessment. After that, it will be possible to send a notification." According to him, the development of a large-scale early warning system was started in 2019 by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture of Georgia, while the Ministry of Internal Affairs is not a competent agency in this regard.  

Although the opposition MPs referred to the late construction of a temporary bridge in Shovi (which then made the movement in the disaster area relatively easier) and the late involvement of the defence forces, Vakhtang Gomelauri focused on the fact that the temporary bridge was built not by the Ministry of Defence, but by the Ministry of Infrastructure. He left unanswered the main question – “Why were the additional forces involved in the process late and why the temporary infrastructure was not put in place sooner?”.

The answers of the Minister of Internal Affairs created an impression that he was not representing the Government, which is responsible for the processes ongoing in the country, but a separate agency, which is beyond the responsibility for all the issues that the interpellation questions concerned.

According to the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Georgia, "As a rule, the addressee of the question asked through the procedure of interpellation shall appear before the Parliament on Friday of the last week of each month of the plenary sessions (except December and June), and shall answer all the questions submitted to him/her not later than 10 days before the mentioned time."[4] The autumn session started on the first Tuesday of September. Therefore, the Minister did not violate the Rules of Procedure in terms of the deadline for arriving at the Parliament.

According to the Rules of Procedure, “The addressee is obliged to . . . submit answers to the plenary session in writing." In a working group set up to strengthen parliamentary control within the framework of the implementation of the 12 priorities laid down by  the European Commission, the Democracy Research Institute demanded that the addressee of the question had the obligation to submit a written answer to a question sent through the procedure of interpellation at least 5 working days before the session. In our opinion, this would help to conduct the debates within the framework of interpellation in a more organized, smooth and meaningful manner.

The need to carry out the mentioned change became obvious during the interpellation of the Minister of Internal Affairs. During the process, opposition MPs expressed their dissatisfaction regarding the content of the Minister's answer several times, which delayed the process and turned it into a show. The Minister, in fact, avoided giving specific answers to the questions and spoke only about general issues.

The Democracy Research Institute considers that another important issue that needs to be changed is the manner of holding debates during interpellation. According to the current edition of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Georgia, questions are not answered automatically. The addressee first listens to all the questions and answers them at the end of the procedure. This rule allows the accountable person to avoid answering questions that are inconvenient and/or unfavourable to him.

During the process held on September 22, a number of MPs asked questions of different content. The Democracy Research Institute considers that the answers to the questions were mostly general and vague.

 

[1] parliament.ge (website), available at: https://parliament.ge/

[2] parliament.ge (website), available at: https://parliament.ge/

[3] parliament.ge (website), available at: https://web-api.parliament.ge/storage/files/shares/interpelacia/22.09.2023/gomelauri/enm_14_08_2023.pdf

[4] Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Georgia, Article 149, paragraph 3.5