Advocates for the proposed referendum on the amendment argue that the changes threaten fundamental individual protections, specifically by introducing mechanisms they term a “political police” system. According to these proponents, the amendment significantly diminishes legal safeguards available to individuals who are subjects of parliamentary investigations. Their primary concern is that the legislation appears to restrict the ability to challenge the decision to initiate such an investigation before the Constitutional Court.
During a recent broadcast on the 24UR NEWS show, contrasting viewpoints were presented by two parliamentarians: Lucija Tacer Perlin, an MP from the Freedom Movement, and Andrej Poglajen, an MP from the SDS party. Poglajen refuted the claims regarding the establishment of a “political police,” dismissing such accusations as political exaggeration. He characterized the concerns raised by the referendum’s proponents as populist statements.
Instead, Poglajen asserted that the amendment’s main objective is to enhance the detection of corruption more efficiently. Furthermore, he questioned the basis of the alleged unconstitutionality, noting that the previous legislation had been operational for years without judicial review protections, suggesting that the current debate over its constitutionality was unexpected.
Topics: #political #police #amendment
