Bandić responded to the leadership of the KS Assembly: The existence of a quorum is not a matter of opinion but of the Rules of Procedure and the KS Constitution

(Patria) - Head of the Party of BiH Caucus in the Sarajevo Canton Assembly Muamer Bandić sent a reaction regarding the functioning of the KS Assembly, after the Speaker of the KS Assembly Elvedin Okerić and deputies Vibor Handžić, Jelena Pekić and Danijela Kristić held a press conference yesterday presenting their views on the session held on June 16, which was left by the opposition deputies, and some of the ruling coalition deputies were at the session of the House of Peoples of the FBiH Parliament, so nine deputies remained in the KS Assembly hall and continued the work.

Bandić explains that the existence of a quorum is not a matter of anyone's opinion.

"The leadership of the Sarajevo Canton Assembly, at a press conference held on June 19, with the aim of 'clarifying' to the public the legality of the work of the 23rd session of the KS Assembly of June 16, 2025, whose legality we rightfully dispute, has shown significantly more ignorance than a mere misunderstanding of the regulations.

The claims made have raised the question of the basic legal capacity of the KS Assembly leadership, and caused serious concern due to the erosion of the legal order in the Sarajevo Canton.

Unfortunately, when the regulation of the legislative and legal framework is left to incompetent or politically immature actors, the consequences are borne not only by the institutions but also by the citizens through legal uncertainty, institutional improvisation, and the erosion of trust in the parliamentary system itself.

It is evident from the statements that the leadership of the KS Assembly is not even in agreement with itself, let alone with the rules they are supposed to enforce. Their statements and interpretations are mutually contradictory, and at the most basic logical and legal level.

For example, the leadership of the KS Assembly claims that a quorum is not needed after the agenda is adopted, while at the same time calling out the opposition deputies for leaving the session. If they claim it is needed, then that same session could not have continued its work, nor could it have passed any legal acts.

Another question is, why didn't they call out the ruling coalition deputies in the same way? We, the opposition, have shown the citizens by leaving what the (non)work of the ruling Trio looks like. A lot of empty demagoguery and an empty hall! And that empty hall is a regular occurrence, not an exception.

It is a supreme shame that some deputies with mandates of several years in the assembly seats, and today in leadership positions, are incapable of articulating any legal basis that would justify working without a continuous quorum. That is no longer a political gaffe, but an institutional collapse!

The leadership is trying to justify its position by referring to Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure, which regulates the course of the session:

"After the quorum for the session is established, the presiding officer proposes the agenda..."

"Based on the adopted agenda, the Assembly confirms the minutes from the previous session by voting..."

Therefore, the second sentence of this article clearly shows that a quorum is necessary even after the agenda is established, because without it, the minutes cannot be voted on. No provision of the Rules of Procedure stipulates the exclusion of a quorum after the opening of the session.

In a separate chapter on the quorum for all sessions of the Assembly, Article 75 of the Rules of Procedure explicitly states:

"The quorum for all sessions of the Assembly consists of a majority of the elected deputies."

This is not a technical condition, it is a continuous, uninterrupted condition for legal work. The Assembly is not a collection of individual acts, but a unified legislative and legal process.

According to the leadership's logic, every provision of the Rules of Procedure would have to explicitly repeat:

"A majority is required when proposing, discussing, debating, voting..." Such formalization would turn the Rules of Procedure into a parody, and the legislative process into improvisation.

Ultimately, Article 21, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Sarajevo Canton leaves no room for subjective interpretation:

"Regulations are considered adopted if at least 51% of the deputies are present at the session and if a majority of the total number of elected deputies voted for the proposed regulation."

Therefore, the presence of a majority of deputies is not a political "luxury" but a constitutional imperative. Ignoring this rule constitutes a conscious violation of the Constitution.

Additionally, Articles 138 and 139 of the Rules of Procedure regulate the debate of laws as a unified and integral legislative process. The Assembly can decide to conduct a general and/or individual debate – but how to decide if there is no quorum?

The leadership of the Assembly accuses the opposition of "non-attendance" at working bodies, while completely ignoring the scandalous and brazen inactivity of the executive authorities:

For example, out of 38 sessions of the KS Collegium, the Prime Minister attended three, and out of 30 sessions of working bodies, he attended some once or twice, and some not at all, while some ministers appeared at some only once or twice, and at others not at all!

And who is truly obstructing the work of the KS Assembly? The opposition, which points out violations of procedures, or the executive authorities, which ignore those same procedures? And what is truly political arrogance in this?

The leadership of the KS Assembly rejected our proposal from the opposition to postpone the session and continue it when the deputies from the House of Peoples of the FBiH return, and then accuses us of "destruction". The citizens did not witness opposition extremism at that session, but the political arrogance of the KS Assembly leadership!

Equal arrogance is when you adopt a Work Program that sets deadlines for passing laws, and then you don't adhere to it yourself, or when you propose five laws at one session, only one of which was planned in the Work Program, claiming that these laws are "of exceptional importance", thereby justifying their adoption without a quorum.

Tell us, if these laws were so important, why didn't you plan them in the Work Program? That fact alone shows that you are working extra-institutionally and voluntaristically, according to your private interests!

Gentlemen, the legislative process is not your private property. It is a public, constitutional, and legally regulated field. A quorum is not a political option or a matter of opinion, but a constitutional foundation, and without it, the KS Assembly does not pass laws, but legally null and void acts.

Every government, including the legislative one, must have limits. These limits are determined by the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure, not by the daily political interests of the ruling majority!

I will not even speak about the dignity of the KS Assembly leadership, which does not understand even the fundamental postulates of parliamentary democracy and which has turned the parliamentary process in the Sarajevo Canton into a private circus of the ruling majority. Of everything they said at that North Korean press conference, I only believe them that the citizens of Sarajevo have certainly felt the results of their work.

Moreover, they feel them every day in the form of traffic collapse, a dirty and neglected city, a leptospirosis epidemic, poor public services, and crime and corruption that flourish under their experienced and brilliant management.

I assume that we from the opposition are also to blame for this, and not those who are supposed to work, who manage processes and make decisions in the Sarajevo Canton", said Bandić.