Virta: Finland needs serious discussion about constitutional review
-
Loading... - Paula Evang
- 02 Jul 2024
- 157 Views
- 0 Like
- 0 Comment
Sofia Virta, chairperson of the Green League, has called for a serious discussion in the Finnish Parliament about the state of constitutional review, echoing concerns raised by Kaarlo Tuori, an esteemed legal scholar. Tuori, the honorary president of the Venice Commission, expressed alarm over the politicisation of the Constitutional Law Committee. He argued that since the start of the current electoral term, the committee has increasingly sidelined human rights to approve government bills, culminating in a controversial statement on a border security bill that disregarded the opposition of 18 legal experts.
The committee's approval of the statement by a 15-2 vote broke several conventional rules, marking the first instance of such blatant dismissal of expert opinions, according to Tuori. Virta highlighted the severity of Tuori's criticism and urged for a general discussion free from partisan conflict. She emphasized that the responsibility lies with the National Coalition, which presides over the committee, but noted their reluctance to acknowledge the issue.
Li Andersson, chairperson of the Left Alliance, also noted the long-term politicisation of the committee, particularly evident in the handling of the so-called refoulement act. She called for discussions on strengthening the rule of law and supported exploring the establishment of a constitutional court in Finland, a proposal floated by Anders Adlercreutz, chairperson of the Swedish People’s Party.
Representatives from the Centre in the Constitutional Law Committee, including Antti Kurvinen, chairperson of the Centre Parliamentary Group, have not indicated any politicisation. Kurvinen acknowledged the need for vigilance regarding the rule of law but noted that interpreting the constitution is not straightforward and often involves relying on the opinions of a few experts.
Chancellor of Justice Tuomas Pöysti dismissed the suggestion of politicisation but agreed on the need for a critical discussion on statement procedures. He acknowledged the differing views on prioritizing economic and security concerns versus human rights obligations within the committee's deliberations.
