Power deputies misappreciated Enver Bujar, who the Britons previously did not even cross

Civil Society and activist organisations that have been monitoring the selection of the Commissioner for Information and Privateship, estimate that the scores, which Bujar mostly received, are not meritably separated from the commission, which in large part consists of the deputies of the Vetevendosje Movement.

“From direct monitoring of this process, we assess that the process of verifying submitted documentation, interviewing and positioning after interview has not guaranteed merit assessment of the candidates interviewed, for some reasons”, is said in response.

Civil society has found that the claim to be elected Commissioner for Information and Privateness has changed its data several times to the CV.

He, according to observers, has changed his years of study and years of work in the police.

Otherwise, Bujar, who has taken the most of points, has applied for the same position over the past years. However, the British, who have helped the election process, have not given it the passing points.

Read full OSHC response:

REAGIM:

O SHC: Repeat competition for the election of commissioner/e, ensuring transparency and meritisocracy in the new process

Pristina, June 7th, 2021 ♫ In undersigned organisations and activists, expresses our deep concern with irregularities and procedures followed in the fourth process of selecting the Commissioner for Information and Privateness.

The Kosovo Parliament's Defence and Security Affairs Commission interview panel, consisting of deputies Fatmir Humolli, Albanian Mehmeti Selimi, Mefail Bajciovac, Arber Rexaj and Enver Dugolli from the Vetevendosje Movement, Srdjan Galushi and the Kosovo Roma Progressive Movement and Slavko Simic from the Serbian List, have interviewed candidates on June 7th 2021.

The position of Edon Miftar, Enver Bujar, Krenar Kapuska, Crenare Sogoeva Dermaku, Sadik Kryeziu and Xhemsit Brajshori. Three of them were interviewed, respectively, Edon Miftar, Enver Bujar and Crenare Sogojevo Dermaku. A few minutes before the interview, Sadik Kryeziu withdrew.

Present MPs mostly praised candidate Enver Bujar, with 69 points respectively, candidate Crenare Sogojevo Dermaku with 63 points and candidate Edon Miftar with 61.5 points.

From direct monitoring of this process, we assess that the process of verifying the submitted documentation, interviewing and positioning after the interview has not guaranteed merit assessment of the candidates interviewed, for several reasons.

One, from the biographies analysis of all candidates, we have noted that the biography handed down in this process by Mr. Brad is not the same as the biographies he has delivered in previous processes on several points. According to the biography delivered in 2019 in the Kosovo Assembly, Mr. Bujar had stated that he worked as the head of the unit for narcotics investigation in 2006-2019, in the biography handed over in 2020 he had claimed to have worked in that position in the 2009-2020 period, while in the biography handed out in 2021 he has declared working in that position in 2009-2019. Also, the record of biographies is disproportional in study dates. According to the biography handed over the first and second time, he has carried out the Faculty for Political Science and Public Administration at the “College. Fame” for two years (2010-2012) while according to the third-time record, he has performed the faculty for three years in another period of time (2007-2010). He has also changed the dates in which he conducted studies in the field of engineering, including the name of the educational institution. We express our concern that the recruiting panel has not verified this information.

In addition, during the interview the panel has ignored the methodology created by British experts, which was accepted by the Assembly to ensure meritocracy, integrity and legitimacy of the selection processes. The questions were compiled without the presence of monitors from civil society, unlike past processes when we were invited to be part of the whole process.

Similarly, MPs have recently made the assessment transparently, announcing the points of appreciation after each interview and offering justification for the assessment made. This time, MPs have anonymously praised candidates by not giving rationale for the points given. We remember that the highest rated candidate from the Commission this time ran even in all past processes, but British experts who had helped the recruiting process in 2019 and 2020 had not assessed it with passing points and recommended it for the position of Commissioner for Information and Privateness.

We also reiterate our concern about the composition of the interviewing panel. With the Vetevendosje Movement proposal, the panel is made up of all members of the Commission and not only one representative of political parties, such as parliamentary practice so far. While the ruling parties have failed to reach consensus to keep opposition parties involved, at the same time we consider that the opposition has failed to fulfill its commitment to represent the interests of its voters by participating in the Assembly and making its contribution.

The position of the Commissioner for Information and Privateship and the area covered by the Agency, which is headed by the Commissioner/is extremely sensitive, and as such requires full legitimacy for anyone elected to this position. The many problems associated with this process have directly affected the loss of this necessary legitimacy.

Considering the process already in a very advanced phase to enable the improvement of these problems, we call on the Parliament's deputies, who repeat the contest by ensuring that such irregularities are avoided in the future, and Kosovo becomes with the Commissioner for Information and Privateness on merit grounds.

Organizations and signatories:

FOL Movement

Kushar butterfly

Group for Legal and Political Studies

Kosovo Democracy Institute / Transparency International Kosova

K CSF

Organization Arise / Praportr

Democracy for Development (D4D)

GAP Institute