By: Vida Kocjan
Dr Klemen Jaklič, the first Slovenian constitutional judge with a double doctorate, has been a thorn in the side of the transitional left all along, attempts at his media assassination, now also in media sympathetic to the transitional left and the deep state, have been going on for several years. This is also the case in the current action, which is completely coordinated both in the media and in leftist politics, but without any basis. This is confirmed by the doyen of Slovenian constitutional law and former President of the Constitutional Court, Dr Ernest Petrič.
There seems to be no end to the coordinated and politically motivated attack by leftists on constitutional judge Dr Klemen Jaklič. This time it began with certain left-wing media outlets and then a dramatic call from the President of the National Assembly, Urška Klakočar Zupančič, for Jaklič to “immediately resign” as a constitutional judge. As a reason, she cited that he had his own sole proprietorship, which, according to her, is not allowed by law. When it became clear within a few hours that Klakočar Zupančič did not know the legislation and was shooting in the dark, she became quiet and withdrew. After about 14 days, she spoke up again. This time, the deep state is playing a game with the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (CPC), but it is all just a transparent bluff. Klakočar Zupančič initially supposedly referred the “Jaklič” matter to the CPC. They then stated that they have no influence on this matter. And today, Klakočar Zupančič is again proclaiming that the CPC is “competent as the expert body for assessing the Jaklič case”.
This is complete evasion. There was nothing wrong with Jaklič’s case.
It is sad that not even all the constitutional judges stood up in defence of Constitutional Judge Jaklič, including the President of the Constitutional Court, Matej Accetto. Furthermore, during this time, five judges sowed doubt with statements about the ambiguity of the law on the Constitutional Court regarding the incompatibility of activities with the function of a constitutional judge, and they proposed amending the law.
To clarify matters, however, constitutional judges Marko Šorli, Rok Svetlič, and Klemen Jaklič issued a statement. They distanced themselves from the statements of the other five judges. They wrote that the statement of the five would not contribute to the protection of the independence, legitimacy, and reputation of the court. This was also confirmed by former President of the Constitutional Court, Ernest Petrič, in an interview with Radio Ognjišče.
Petrič stated, “The law on the Constitutional Court is perfectly clear!” Regarding gainful activity, he mentioned exceptions such as pedagogical and research work at the university. He added that the legal norm is clear, but the law does not specify the method: whether through a service contract, copyright contract, or sole proprietorship.
Petrič also addressed the response of the President of the National Assembly, Klakočar Zupančič, stating that she should have familiarised herself with what the law says to avoid the current situation. “The result of this is further erosion of the authority and reputation of the Constitutional Court.” Petrič believes that the situation needs to be calmed down. He said, “If someone seriously believes that the law on the Constitutional Court needs to be amended (which is a matter for the legislative branch of government), they have that right. But making a problem out of it now and involving the anti-corruption commission is completely misguided!”
Petrič further added that judges of the Constitutional Court enjoy immunity and cannot be replaced just because someone dislikes them.
Regarding the Constitutional Court’s function, he emphasised that it is meant to protect the state from the abuses of the majority and to safeguard the human rights of individuals. Petrič believes that the Constitutional Court has recently forgotten its function. He assessed the statement of the five judges who sent out an ambiguous message to the public as being tailored to what the political leadership wants to hear for media purposes.
