The Assembly of the Republic, the Mozambican parliament, started on Tuesday to debate the report of that organ's Commission for Juridic Affairs on the Law Against Corruption, with all discussions focusing particularly on aticle six, concerning applications and petitions to any institution.
This law had been passed by the parliament and submitted to the President for promulgation, but the President sent it back to the Assembly of the Republic, after finding that it contained some inconstitutionalities.
The President found irregularities in article six and 20, the later concerning the competences of the Central Office for the Fight Against Corruption.
In article six, the parliament had approved that any application not replied within the legally established period of 30 days it should be automaticly be considered as turned out "indeferimento tacito".
"In my point of view, aknowledging the insufficiencies of our public services, such a presumption (of indeferimento tacito) will put the citizens in serious disadvantage in presence of the public service", reads the president's document that accompanied the returned law.
The document explains that this would represent a serious disadvantage to the public, because of the known delays, particularly within the state apparatus.
The document adds that this matter should be dealt with in a law of administrative procedures, not in the law against corruption, which is a special legislation On this matter, Maximo Dias, of the Renamo-Electoral Union opposition coalition argues that this article "is essential in the law of fight against corruption because this kind of delays is usually the first step of corruption and extorsion".
He explained that very often applications and other papers are held and not replied, expecting the applicant to disburse money or other goods if he wants his papers to be worked on.
However, he proposes a change: Instead of "indeferimento tacito", he suggests it to be "deferimento tacito", which means that after the expiry of the legal deadline, if there is no reply, the applicant should consider his request automaticly satisfied.
The opposition says that in view of the evident morosity in the institutions' procedures, one should give lengtier deadlines, suggesting 60, rather than 30 days for an institution to reply to any application.
On the other hand, the parliamentary group of the ruling Frelimo party argues that since "indeferimento tacito" was found to be unpracticable, then this article should be simply scretched from that law.
The parliament's chairperson, Eduardo Mulembue, decided that the matter be again put to discussion by the Commission, that should bring a report on Wednesday for further debates.
Mulembwe also suggested that if the commission thinks that the article in question must remain, then it should also consider extending the deadline, not to 60, but to 90 days, because of the aknowledged constraints in public services.
As for article 20, the president's document says that it interferes with the powers of the judges, by giving the Anti-Corruption Unit power to "demand people to present in writen information on their property (including bank account reports and other records), in an intial stage of investigations, when there are not yet any incriminating evidence".
"I believe that competence to order searches in any place, to detain people or obtain incriminating evidence should not be done by nobody with no jurisditional powers", reads the document.
This article is yet to be debated before the closing of the present session, that ends on Thursday.
Fonte: AIM
