Jaöko Jonkka, the predecessor of Pöyst, has emphasized the importance of the division of roles so that the Chancellor of Justice does not participate in the decision-making he supervises.
Terrestrial the Chancellor of Justice, one of the chief legal officers Tuomas Pöysti does not intend to participate in the preparatory talks of the government in the future.
BTI asked Pöyst about his role in preparing a bill on movement restrictions. On Friday, Pöyst’s e-mails in which he was suspected of advising the Prime Minister on writing a text of the law and communicating the motion were reported in the media.
Read more: Emails reveal: Chancellor of Justice Pöysti advised Prime Minister on communications and writing a text of the law – Legal scholars highly question
During the preparation, Pöysti says that he participated in a joint negotiation of the leaders of the governing parties at the request.
“In line with the Chancellor of Justice’s established practice, feedback in the right direction has been provided towards the end of the preparation, when the matter was coming to a decision. Now, in the final stages of preparation, there was a need to give a lot on an urgent schedule, ”Pöysti tells STT.
He says he has now outlined that he will not take part in negotiations that do not deal with the final decision-making basis for the draft laws.
“Furthermore, it is my overall assessment that I would limit my participation to the formal closing sessions of the Plenary Session only.”
In the General Assembly, the Board approves, among other things, bills submitted to Parliament.
BTI asked Pöyst for an interview on the preparation of the Restrictions on Movement Act presented at the end of March and on the role of the Chancellor of Justice in general. Pöysti answered BTI’s questions by e-mail.
I left according to him, a greater and more visible distance from the subjects could well be justified in terms of the credibility of the review of legality.
“The Chancellor of Justice has traditionally given quick feedback on the need for remediation as the Government Plenary Session approaches. The forms by which it is given should be considered. Emails are a quick way to communicate, but there is a risk of misinterpretation and a sense of excessive closeness, ”Pöysti writes.
In the second horizontal cup, he said, the arguments for the effectiveness of legality control and steering things in the right direction weigh.
One of those raised emails was sent directly to the Prime Minister Sanna Marinille (sd) and his political staff. In it, Pöysti said what is “worth emphasizing in public” in the performance.
He later called the formulation of the message unfortunate, but denied he had relinquished the role of guardian of legality. He had previously denied leaving the role of referee or being a member of the “government team”.
“However, I tried to avoid giving a legally incorrect picture of the key provision of the government’s proposal,” Pöysti said on Friday. To Helsingin Sanomat.
Read more: The Chancellor of Justice considers Pöysti having kept the role, but admits “the hapless formatting” in posts: “I have exposed myself to criticism”
Week then also the predecessor of Pöyst Jaakko Jonkka took a position on the administrative status of the Chancellor of Justice.
Jonkka, who served as Chancellor of Justice from 2007 to 2017, wrote in his letter to HS in the opinion paper, that the Chancellor of Justice may sometimes participate in the preparation of laws even before they are examined under the General Assembly of the Council of State.
Someone stressed that even at an earlier stage, the Chancellor of Justice should act as a supervisor and not as a writer of articles or an assistant to further the goals of the government.
“Adherence to the division of roles is important in these informal government negotiations because the Chancellor of Justice is not involved in the decision-making that he is obliged to oversee,” Jonkka wrote.
Restricted motion presentation the preparation has been in the public eye since the motion failed in the parliamentary constitutional committee, accompanied by many of its exceptions.
According to e-mails discussed in public, Pöysti has told officials in the Prime Minister’s Office that the draft received “surprisingly positive” feedback from legal scholars. Saturday Pöysti asked doctor Pauli Rautiainen sorry for the misinterpretation of this position.
At the same time, Pöysti said he had collected reactions from the media and social media instead of asking for direct feedback. He tells BTI that the officials who received the message were aware of this, as the matter had been discussed orally in the past.
“So the recipients of the message knew it was a social media and media discussion and that way no one has been misled,” Pöysti writes.
The Constitutional Committee of Parliament is responsible for supervising the activities of the Chancellor of Justice. Chairman of the Committee Antti Rinne (sd) did not wish to comment on the matter, and BTI did not reach the Vice-Chair About Antti Häkkä (kok) for an interview on Saturday.
Chairs of major opposition parties Jussi Halla-aho (ps) and Petteri Orpo (kok) said on Saturday To Helsingin Sanomatthat do not require Pöyst to resign due to the information disclosed in the messages. They stressed the government’s responsibility for drafting the law.
Read more: Halla-aho and Orpo do not demand the resignation of Chancellor of Justice Pöyst: “The aim is to sacrifice the Chancellor of Justice, even though the government alone is responsible for drafting the law,” says Halla-aho
#Chancellor #Justice #Chancellor #Justice #Tuomas #Pöysti #intend #participate #Boards #preparatory #negotiations #future