By: Dr Vinko Gorenak
A few days ago, we were presented with the report of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (KPK), which accused Prime Minister Golob of violating integrity in the case of Tatjana Bobnar, the former Minister of the Interior. At the end of 2022, she informed the public, as well as law‑enforcement authorities (the police and the prosecution), about the unacceptable pressure Golob had exerted on her as interior minister, namely that she should replace certain people in the police. This was something that, by law, was neither within Golob’s authority nor within the authority of the then interior minister, Tatjana Bobnar.
However, the final KPK report is not public at all. According to publicly available information, the report is said to be 44 pages long or even longer. Golob himself extracted from it only two text messages he sent to Bobnar in 2022, and on that basis he attacks the KPK’s decision. The messages read: “Good morning. I must admit that I am becoming seriously concerned about the staffing situation in the police. Let’s meet this week just on this topic. I emphasise: seriously concerned.” In the second message to Bobnar: “I don’t like any of it. Because none of the agreement has been carried out. Period. Final period.”
A person unfamiliar with the situation might conclude that there is nothing wrong with Golob’s messages to Bobnar. Why should the prime minister not be allowed to take an interest in staffing in the police? But that is not the case. The KPK report is said to have 44 or more pages, and Golob extracted only two text messages he sent to Bobnar, nothing more. On this basis he builds his false defence.
From previously published information, and especially from Bobnar’s testimony before the parliamentary inquiry commission, it is clear that Golob demanded from her the so‑called “cleansing of Janša supporters,” which Bobnar agreed to, and according to some sources even proposed herself when she was still a candidate for interior minister. But when it came to her own people, she changed her tune. According to these accounts, Golob demanded the replacement of Egon Govekar, director of the Nova Gorica Police Directorate (the one down there near me), and Martin Jazbec, director of the Administration for Police Specialties. In the past, Jazbec had dismissed Miloš Milović from the police, who at the beginning of Golob’s term was apparently one of his key advisers. It is therefore clear that in this matter Golob acted merely as an intermediary between Milović and Bobnar, with a demand for the unlawful replacement of Jazbec. Staffing decisions in the police, however, fall neither under the authority of the prime minister nor the interior minister, but exclusively under the authority of the director‑general of the police.
We may conclude that all this is written in the KPK report of 44 or more pages, which, for reasons unclear to me, the KPK supposedly may not publish until the court decides on the matter. But the KPK report covers only what falls within the KPK’s jurisdiction. In the same case, law‑enforcement authorities (the police), prosecutorial authorities (the prosecution), and the judiciary have also acted. The police assessed that Golob had committed the criminal offense of unlawful interference and therefore filed a criminal complaint against him. The prosecution agreed with the police and requested a judicial investigation. The court accepted the request for an investigation, but according to currently known information has not yet decided on initiating it. All of this is, of course, far more important than the KPK report.
Everything also suggests that the KPK did not address Golob’s demand for “cleansing Janša supporters” in the police, at RTVS, and elsewhere. Such a demand by Golob is in direct contradiction with Article 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, which states: “Everyone shall be guaranteed equal protection of their rights in any proceeding before a court and before other state authorities, local community authorities, and holders of public authority that decide on his rights, duties, or legal interests.” Golob’s demand was therefore clearly unconstitutional.