The parliamentary management committees have failed to restore confidence between the Attorney General of the Confederation Michael Lauber and his supervisory authority. They say the prosecutor is “misinterpreting surveillance,” but the system may need to be reviewed.
The commissions released an interim investigation report into the conflict on Thursday. Following a disciplinary investigation, the MPC Supervisory Authority concluded in March that the public prosecutor had committed very serious breaches before, but also during the disciplinary proceedings.
Also read: Michael Lauber faces revocation proceedings
In connection with secret meetings with FIFA president Gianni Infantino, he is said to have made statements contrary to the truth, violated the duty of loyalty or hindered the disciplinary investigation. Mr Lauber however contested the formal and substantive complaints. He also criticizes the supervisory authority for having committed numerous procedural errors, for exceeding its powers and for showing bias.
Questionable objectivity
The management committees have investigated divergent conceptions of supervision. They tried to ignore the disciplinary procedure, but note that it largely contributed to the fact that the representatives of the MPC had a negative view of the facts and a sometimes questionable objectivity.
According to them, not only did Mr. Lauber no longer accept the Supervisory Authority within the framework of the disciplinary procedure, he also still tends to ill-accept the activities of the authority not provided for by consensus with him in other areas. The authority cannot therefore currently assume its mission as it would like.
Unacceptable attitude
The respect due by the prosecutor to his supervisory authority is however essential. For the management committees, it is unacceptable that Mr. Lauber no longer participates in monitoring sessions or attacks head-on the authority that exercises him at a press conference.
Neither can the prosecutor restrict surveillance by indicating to what extent she can exercise her right to consult documents related to criminal proceedings. It is up to the supervisory authority to decide.
Mr. Lauber seems to forget that the latter is as independent as the MPC. The authority does not violate the independence of the criminal prosecution when it influences the prosecution on management issues. The legislator’s intention was clearly to authorize such influence.
No Uster revolution
According to the investigation, the surveillance did not change direction either when its new president Hanspeter Uster took office as claimed by the MPC. The latter is not ill-intentioned and has no prejudices against the prosecutor.
Mr. Uster is not flawless either. He made faux-pas by contributing to a press leak that personally injured Mr. Lauber and some inspection reports have still not been delivered. Mediation between the two men is however not possible and there is nothing to justify the supervision of the supervisory authority.
Review the system
For management commissions, the monitoring system must be reviewed. Introduced in 2011, the system of an independent MPC subject to specific independent monitoring can work. But it does not withstand crises well enough.
The management commissions want to legislate. They will ask for legal opinions on several options: the maintenance of the current organization with certain improvements or a more thorough reform with for example a reinstatement of the MPC within the federal administration or an examination of the distribution of competences within of the MPC and between the MPC and its supervisory authority.
In the meantime, the MPC and the authority can take a position on the report until September 15.
–