On February 29, the Democracy Research Institute held a presentation of the report "Importance of Parliamentary Control over Security Sector and Current Challenges". The document is a one-year observation report on the implementation of parliamentary control over the State Security Service of Georgia, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Defence, and covers the period from January 1 to December 31, 2023.

 

The weakness of parliamentary control over the security sector is one of the obstacles to European integration. The results of the one-year monitoring of the parliamentary oversight of the security sector make it clear that the main cause of the weakness of parliamentary control, along with the failure of legislative regulations, is the lack of political will necessary for the implementation of real control.

Despite the positive changes made to the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Georgia in the process of fulfilling the 12 priorities of the European Commission, a number of gaps remained in the direction of parliamentary oversight:

• Parliamentary control mechanisms are limited for the parliamentary opposition; In many cases, the implementation of control mechanisms depends on the approval of the parliamentary majority
• The ruling party lacks the political will to exercise parliamentary oversight of the security sector
• Members of Parliament do not actively use the oversight mechanisms provided for by the Rules of Procedure
• The role of the opposition in the activities of the Trust Group is limited
• The Parliament of Georgia lacks the opportunity to evaluate the activities of the Trust Group, since the meetings of the Trust Group are closed; According to the Rules of Procedure, the Trust Group does not have the obligation to submit an activity report to the Parliament.
• Accountability of the officials of the agencies of the security sector is low; Officials do not attend committee meetings despite the relevant requirment of the Rules of Procedure
• Parliamentary opposition does not have the opportunity to independently summon the Head of the State Security Service to the parliamentary committee session
• In the reporting period, the least number of written questions were sent to the State Security Service
• Since December 2018, no interpellation mechanism has been used in relation to the Minister of Defence or the Head of the State Security Service
• Despite being summoned to the committee session by the parliamentary opposition, the Minister of Internal Affairs did not attend the session
• The mechanism of summoning an offical to the committee session has not been used in relation to the Head of the State Security Service
• Confidentiality of the provisions of the State Security Service prevents effective parliamentary control
• The Parliament of Georgia kept the established vicious practice and continued the question-and-answer mode in a closed format after the presentation of the report of the State Security Service
• Despite the changes made to the Rules of Procedure, the 2022 activity report of the State Security Service was again presented at the committee hearing by the Deputy Head of the Service, which is a violation of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Georgia.

Along with the problems related to parliamentary oversight, DRI also presented the joint vision of 12 civil society organizations regarding the 5^th step of the European Commission, which concerns the strengthening of parliamentary oversight of the security sector.

"Importance of Parliamentary Control over Security Sector and Current Challenges"