How Stevanović interprets the role of the President of the National Assembly

Zoran Stevanović, president of the National Assembly of Slovenia, has responded to calls for his removal, stating that the proposal is based on a mistaken assumption. In a public statement, he addressed the opposition's motion against him, clarifying that the allegations are unfounded. The motion claims that Stevanović failed to fulfill his constitutional and procedural duties, but he argues that this is incorrect. Stevanović emphasized that he did not prevent the calling of extraordinary sessions nor did he reject the inclusion of proposed agenda items. On the contrary, both extraordinary sessions were called within the legal timeframe, all requested points were added to the agenda as demanded by the proposers, and the National Assembly was allowed to make decisions on them. He maintained that he followed the requests of the proposers fully and acted similarly in response to other requests for extraordinary sessions. The president of the National Assembly pointed out that the motion incorrectly equates two distinct phases of the parliamentary process. The first phase involves calling an extraordinary session, which the president does according to the constitution and rules of procedure. The second phase is the decision-making on the agenda, which is made by the National Assembly as a collective body. Stevanović noted that he has no authority to override the decisions of deputies and members regarding the agenda or influence the outcome of voting. His role is to ensure the legality of the process and enable the National Assembly to make decisions. This, he stated, he has done in both cases. He further explained that the National Assembly makes decisions on the agenda, and therefore, the responsibility for the outcome of votes cannot be attributed to the president of the National Assembly. This is confirmed by the facts presented in the motion itself. The motion is based on disagreement with the decision of the majority of deputies and does not indicate any conduct by the president that would be in violation of the constitution or rules of procedure. It is grounded in disagreement with the decision of the majority of deputies on the agenda, for which the president of the National Assembly has neither constitutional nor procedural authority and thus cannot bear legal responsibility. Accepting such an interpretation would mean that the president of the National Assembly would be responsible for every decision made by deputies and members during voting, despite the constitution not granting such authority. In response to the motion for Stevanović’s removal, political commentators have already written about how the motion lacks any chance of success and is primarily a test of the coalition's strength. The cabinet of President Stevanović rejected the accusations leveled against him by the deputies of the opposition parties Freedom, SDS, and Left. They stated that Stevanović did not interfere with the rights of the proposers or the content of the request for the extraordinary sessions of the National Assembly, which would have required the National Assembly to establish investigative committees concerning Black Cube and suspicions of circumvention financing of parties. According to the cabinet, this clearly demonstrates that Stevanović handled both requests without delay. They argued that the motion for removal does not demonstrate behavior by the president of the National Assembly that would be in conflict with the constitution and rules of procedure but rather is based on “disagreement with the decision of the majority of deputies on the agenda.” For this latter point, the president of the National Assembly cannot bear legal responsibility. They emphasized that the president of the National Assembly has no authority to determine a different agenda or influence the result of voting beyond the decisions of deputies and members. His task is to ensure the legal course of the process and enable the National Assembly to make decisions, which he has done in both instances. They also reminded that the constitution stipulates that deputies are not bound by any instructions when performing their functions. Therefore, the president of the National Assembly has no authority to determine the outcome of voting or take responsibility for the decision of the majority of deputies. Thus, the responsibility for the outcome of voting cannot be attributed to the president of the National Assembly. They assessed that the motion for his removal mistakenly equates two distinct phases of the parliamentary process. The first is the calling of an extraordinary session of the National Assembly, and the second is the decision-making on the agenda, which the National Assembly decides upon as a collective body. Stevanović reiterated that the facts are clear, as well as the law and the constitution, in his response shared on the social media platform X by the party Resnica, which he leads. He stated that he demands equal rules for everyone and that no one should be shielded or defended from exceptions. “If we go into an investigation, let’s all go. Without hiding and with open cards,” he urged on X. Similarly, Stevanović had previously explained his decision and the decision of his party members not to vote for the approval of the agenda. He repeatedly affirmed that they have no issues with establishing an investigative committee regarding Black Cube, while the investigative committee regarding the financing of parties, according to his view, should cover all parties. The cabinet of Stevanović reaffirmed that as president of the National Assembly, he will continue to perform his duties in accordance with the constitution, the rules of the National Assembly, and the principles of “legality, impartiality, and dignified operation of the highest representative body of the Republic of Slovenia.” Freedom, SDS, and Left, in today’s submitted motion for the removal of the president of the National Assembly, among other things, accuse him of violating the constitutional order, participating in the misuse of parliamentary procedures, and abandoning the protection of constitutional rights of the opposition. The move by the opposition follows the rejection of the agenda of the extraordinary sessions, thereby preventing the National Assembly from establishing opposition parliamentary investigations.