Tolib Rakhmonov

Image source: www.kun.uz

Introduction

Within the framework of separation of powers, Parliament plays a significant role in regulating the most important public relations. The Oliy Majlis (Parliament), in addition to passing laws, also monitors their implementation. The procedure for such control is regulated by the Law “On Parliamentary Control”, which lists several forms of parliamentary control, including parliamentary investigation. Namely, in this blog post I will discuss the concept and meaning of a parliamentary investigation, the problems associated with its implementation, and also put forward a number of proposals for improving this institution.

The concept of a parliamentary investigation

Currently, there is no special law outlining the procedure of conducting parliamentary investigations. This institution is one of the forms of parliamentary control, therefore, the procedure for conducting a parliamentary investigation is highlighted in the Law “On Parliamentary Control” (hereafter, Law). Article 18 of the Law establishes that a parliamentary investigation may be initiated through a joint decision by the Legislative Chamber and the Senate in order to study facts and events that pose a threat to human rights and freedoms, the society and the State’s interests, and may have a negative impact on the foundations of security and sustainable development of the country.

However, this Law does not contain an exact definition of this concept. The distinguishing feature of the parliamentary investigation is, unlike other forms of parliamentary control (for example, a parliamentary inquiry), its authorization through a joint decision of the chambers of the Oliy Majlis. A special commission, comprising representatives from the Legislative Chamber and the Senate on a parity basis, conducts a parliamentary investigation. The Law granted this commission a number of rights to conduct a parliamentary investigation. Recent parliamentary investigation was conducted in July 2022. The Senate and the Legislative Chamber of the Oliy Majlis formed a joint commission headed by the Ombudsman to study the facts and events that occurred in Karakalpakstan in early July 2022 and conducted an independent investigation on them.

Problems of conducting the parliamentary investigation

The Law devotes only one article to the procedure for conducting a parliamentary investigation, which falls short of fully disclosing the specifics of this form of parliamentary control. The Law only defines the cases of conducting a parliamentary investigation, the procedure for the formation of a special commission for its conduct, as well as the rights of this commission during the investigation. However, a number of issues related to the implementation of this form of parliamentary control remain unresolved.

Firstly, the Law establishes that parliamentary investigations are conducted in order to study facts and events that not only pose a threat to human rights and freedoms, the interests of society and the state, but also can have a negative impact on the foundations of security and sustainable development of the country. Notably, the above-mentioned grounds for conducting an investigation are abstract and the Law does not list specific cases when it is necessary to initiate a parliamentary investigation;

Secondly, the procedure for deciding on conducting a parliamentary investigation has not been defined. The Law only mentions that the parliamentary investigation is conducted on the basis of a joint decision of the Legislative Chamber and the Senate. But such questions as: From whom the initiative should come? How many votes are needed to make such a decision? – remained unclear;

Thirdly, the Law fails to establish certain requirements for members of the commission conducting a parliamentary investigation. After all, such cases where a member of the commission harbors ties to a person who is a participant in the event being investigated by the commission, and is directly or indirectly interested in the outcome of the investigation, are not excluded;

Fourth, Art. 18 of the Law stipulates that a special commission report on its progress within a period determined by a joint decision of the Legislative Chamber and the Senate. At the same time, there is no specific deadline for the parliamentary investigation. This can lead to a loss of trust, that is, if the investigation continues for too long, the public may lose interest or trust in the results of the investigation, which can damage confidence in parliament and its work;

Fifth, the Law neglects to identify the sources of financing for the costs of conducting parliamentary investigations. The commission is entitled to involve representatives of state bodies, economic management bodies, specialists, experts and scientists in its work.  But the issue of covering the expenses of persons involved in the work of the special commission remain unresolved.

The analysis shows that while there are legislative guidelines on how to conduct a parliamentary investigation, the specific mechanisms for executing it are not sufficiently developed. Consequently, the legislative improvements are imperative to fully implement the institution of parliamentary investigation.

Proposals for improving legislation.

Based on the above analysis, as well as on the experience of some foreign countries, I have developed the following proposals and recommendations for improving legislation to strengthen the mechanisms for conducting parliamentary investigations.

1) The Law should clearly define the cases when conducting a parliamentary investigation is necessary. The concept of “facts and events that threaten human rights and freedoms, the interests of society and the state” is quite broad and leads to various interpretations. For example, in Art. 6 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On Parliamentary Investigation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation” lists instances when it is necessary to conduct a parliamentary investigation.

2) The Law should specify the procedure for initiating a parliamentary investigation. For example, Article 44 of the German Constitution states that the Bundestag has the right, and at the suggestion of one quarter of its members is obligated to create a commission of inquiry. According to Art. 3 of “Act on the inspection and investigation of state administration” of Korea, the National Assembly shall require a special or standing committee to conduct an investigation of state administration into a specific state affair if requested by not less than 1/4 of all assemblymen.

3) Certain requirements should be established for the members of the commission conducting the parliamentary investigation. In particular, the Law must establish that members of the special commission cannot be individuals who are participants in the event being investigated by the commission; who has a family relationship with a person who is a participant in the event being investigated by the commission and etc.

Establishing such requirements will ensure the independence, objectivity and impartiality of the special commission for parliamentary investigation.

4) It is necessary to set a deadline for the parliamentary investigation. The absence of a deadline for conducting a parliamentary investigation may lead to a deterioration of public confidence in parliament, as well as to a slowdown in the processes of making important decisions and a possible disruption of the normal functioning of parliament. Therefore, it is necessary to set a specific time limit for the investigation. For example, according to the legislation of the Russian Federation, the term of a parliamentary investigation is one year from the date of formation of the commission. In accordance with the legislation of Korea, the National Assembly shall conduct an annual inspection of overall state affairs by competent standing committees, setting a period of not more than 30 days from the date on which the inspection of state administration commences before the regular session is convened.

5) The legislation should define the procedure for financing the parliamentary investigation. Particularly, it is necessary to determine the procedure for reimbursement of individuals’ expenses involved in the work of the commission for travel and accommodation in connection with arrival at the meeting of the commission, postage, as well as the procedure for compensation for actual loss of time in connection with involvement in the parliamentary investigation.

6) It is necessary to establish responsibility for refusal to comply or late fulfillment the commission members’ requirements within the framework of the parliamentary investigation. In the current legislation, there is no liability for non-compliance with the requirements of the commission by specialists and experts without valid reasons. For comparative analysis, according to Art. 23 of Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act of Estonia, failure to appear before a committee of investigation without a valid reason following a summons from the committee, failure to present information or documents, or refusal to provide explanations or to reply to questions is punishable by a fine of up to 300 fine units.

Conclusion

The analysis of the current legislation has shown that the parliamentary investigation as one of the forms of parliamentary control has not been fully disclosed. The Law failed to mention the procedure for initiating a parliamentary investigation, the duration of its conduct, as well as issues of financing expenses related to its conduct. This topic opens up a wide scope for discussion among legal scholars and requires careful study. Nevertheless, I hope that the proposals put forward to improve the legislation will be able to fully implement the institution of parliamentary investigation.

Cite as:  Tolib Rakhmonov, “Issues of improving the institution of parliamentary investigation in Uzbekistan”, Uzbekistan Law Blog, 23.08.2024.