The institutional reform in the Republic of Moldova is delayed owing to the government’s low interest in really reforming the National Integrity Agency (NIA) and owing to the insufficient clarity of the current legislation. For its part, the delay in reorganizing the NIA endangers the property and personal interests monitoring activity. The property and interest statements for 2015 and 2016 risk remaining unchecked, says a study carried out within a project implemented by the Institute of Public Policy. The study was presented in a public debate on October 20, IPN reports.
According to the study, the delay in the institutional reform is due to legal and institutional problems and to possible political and financial constraints. The decisive external factor in creating the National Integrity Center and, later, in reforming this into the National Integrity Authority was rather a result of the pressure exerted by GRECO and the European Union.
Institute of Public Policy director Arcadie Barbarosie, the institution responsible for collecting and processing data from property and interests statements hasn’t worked for almost a year and a half because it didn’t have a president after the former president was forced to resign owing to the changes that occurred at the NIA. A new president hasn’t been yet named because there is no political will or because they want to field a particular candidate.
Taking part in the debate, Romania’s Ambassador to Moldova Daniel Ionita said the institutions in Romania became a benchmark in fighting corruption and conflicts of interests. The realities in Moldova during the last few years revealed the vulnerabilities existing at the law enforcement agencies in Chisinau, including the banking frauds and the challenged privatization process. These undermined the people’s condolence in the state institutions and in their capacity to prevent and fight corruption and organized crime. The Moldovan authorities should make effort to swiftly ensure the functionality of the NIA by choosing its president and vice president in accordance with the new provisions of the integrity package adopted in 2016.
Adrian Moraru, director of the Institute of Public Policy of Bucharest, said the integrity problem in Romania and Moldova is related not only to the legal framework, but rather to how society responds to particular cases. “This should be based on the understanding of society that a particular thing is a problem. It is a common effort by the responsible institutions, civil society and the political class and legislative body,” he stated, adding that there are good practices in Moldova that do not work in Romania, such as the electronic declarations and the polygraph test.
The study was conducted within the project “Strengthening the integrated conflicts of interests identification, prevention and combating system in the Republic of Moldova through institutional cooperation and partnership with players in charge from Romania” that was implemented by the Institute of Public Policy of Romania and the National Integrity Authority and the Institute of Public Policy of Moldova.
