By: Ž. N. (Nova24TV.si)
Thursday’s urgent session of the Committee on Justice will undoubtedly remain etched in many people’s memories for a long time. For the first time in history, coalition MPs voted to silence a fellow MP. Additionally, there was no shortage of interruptions of SDS MPs’ speeches by the committee chair and Freedom Movement MP, Lena Grgurevič.
“The Freedom Movement regime in all its glory: MPs from the Freedom Movement and the Levica, including the President of the National Assembly, Klakočar Zupančič, just voted to take away my right to speak because I was quoting Constitutional Court rulings that overturned all verdicts in the Patria case and began reading Article 288 of the Penal Code, which deals with wrongful judicial proceedings,” SDS MP Zvone Černač responded critically on the social media platform X after being silenced.
For a comment on the conduct of yesterday’s session of the Committee on Justice, we reached out to long-time MP and former SDS Vice President Jože Tanko. “Practically none of us on our side, those who were speaking, were able to finish a single sentence. She constantly interrupted, commented, and that is not in line with the rules of the National Assembly, because we were not talking about anything unrelated to the agenda. We were not disrupting the session, and those warnings are baseless as they have no connection to anything,” he initially explained.
While Tanko noted that all SDS MPs were targeted with interruptions during their speeches, he was particularly disturbed by the fact that “on the other side, not a single interruption was made, even when they spoke more broadly about matters not on the agenda.” He added, “We, on the other hand, spoke to the content, but she kept commenting and nitpicking on our arguments, which were very well-founded.” Tanko also criticised the lack of responses to their points: “The judiciary representatives said their piece and left. Nobody stayed to the end to listen to or comment on what we said. It was essentially a farce.”
Intervention in cases of threats
SDS MP Jože Tanko explained that he had also chaired committee sessions in the past, issuing warnings and revoking speaking rights, but only in cases of extreme situations – such as verbal attacks or threats. “In such cases, you are obligated to react when chairing a session, but not in cases of routine debates tied to their demands,” he clarified. He emphasised the importance of distinguishing when intervention is necessary: “Intervention is warranted in cases of threats, not during normal debates when one argues with documents, laws, the Constitution, or excerpts from written texts. That is just not the way it should be,” he stated firmly.
Tanko further noted that some participants, including the committee chair, appeared disturbed by photographs displayed by Janez Janša during the session. Commenting on this, he said it was likely unwelcome because the materials served as evidence revealing duplicity in the proceedings. “We provided proof using charts, pictures, recordings, statements, and quotes, but it clearly did not fit the narrative of their topic or the session’s agenda.”
Addressing accusations such as “You are a liar”, or “You are lying”, that were heard during the session, Tanko remarked: “We were all liars. Whoever spoke was accused of lying.” He criticised these accusations as baseless: “No one countered or pointed out what part of what we said was untrue.”
“If you show a photo from protests or one of judges attending celebratory events hosted by a political party, and those same judges then preside over cases, they are not independent but dependent. When you provide evidence and show it, it is labeled as a lie. Interestingly, the minister, a representative of the SD, did not comment on this, while Grgurevič called it a lie.” Referring to the justification that judges can be members of political parties, Tanko recalled how it was once problematic when a judge from Celje contributed to drafting the SDS’s programme. Upon discovery, the judge was asked to step down from the expert council. “On the other hand, we have the case of Judge Accetto, who drafted the SMC’s programme and is now a Constitutional Court judge.” Although this example was not raised because the session did not reach that point, Tanko explained that problems arise when such issues are highlighted. “For us, this is a problem, but for others, it is considered normal,” he concluded.