The chairman of the constitutive session, Avni Dehari, wrote on Facebook on Sunday that the Constitutional Court's verdict confirmed that the procedural motion in the constitutive session is not valid.
He said that it would be a violation if MPs were asked whether they were in favor of a secret ballot or not.
Furthermore, Dehari said that a vote for, against or abstention for the secret ballot committee means expressing the will of the deputies regarding the voting method.
Dehar's full post:
JUDGMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ASSEMBLY
Point 178 of the Judgment states that neither the Constitution nor the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly determine whether the voting method in the constitutive session should be open or secret and that procedural motions also do not apply to the constitutive session.
Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly does not apply to the constitutive session, but only to plenary sessions and only in certain circumstances, which are expressly mentioned in the Rules of Procedure.
The Constitutional Court has confirmed that the procedural motion in the constitutive session is not valid. Consequently, it would be a violation if MPs were asked whether they are in favor of a secret ballot or not.
Regarding the proposal of the VETËVENDOSJE! Movement for the Speaker of the Assembly, there have been 6 unsuccessful open votes. As the chair of the constitutive session, in the spirit of the Constitutional Court Judgment of 2014, I proposed a secret ballot for the purpose of constituting the Assembly.
A vote for, against or abstention in the secret ballot committee means the expression of the will of the deputies regarding the voting method. Normatively, one voting method does not have more value or weight than another.
The refusal of deputies to vote for the committee is a refusal to carry out the secret ballot, therefore a refusal to exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitutional Court Judgment.
edition
t7 live
