Notification cases: – The Armed Forces’ watchdog is prevented

–

A sergeant secretly filmed a female soldier in the shower. Five women reported sexual harassment and abuse by an elderly officer. Squadron Commander Line Svingen was disqualified from his position after sounding the alarm about critical failure in the helicopter contingency. Chief of Defense Eirik Kristoffersen received for a period eight warning cases a day and warns of a crisis in the Armed Forces.

The defense has actually a separate safety representative, the Armed Forces’ ombuds committee, which on behalf of the Storting shall “ensure that the rights and interests of current and former personnel in the Armed Forces are safeguarded”. There is only one catch: the Defense Ombudsman no longer has access to classified information.

The Storting passed a new law on the ombuds committee in 2021. At that time, the Conservatives, the Liberal Party, the Liberal Party and the Christian Democrats made sure to wing the ombudsman by denying it access to information up to the degree of security “limited”. This is the lowest level of classified information in Norway. This means that if the ombud wants to investigate matters worthy of criticism in the Armed Forces, the Ministry of Defense can classified information and thus protect itself from access and criticism. The goat decides who will get a peek at the oatmeal bag.

The Defense Ombudsman Board are clear that this hinders their work. In the annual report for 2022, the ombuds committee says that employees in the Armed Forces refuse to tell the ombud about how things really are, already during the first inspection under the new law. The ombuds committee then asked the officer in question at Setermoen about the contingency consequences of deficiencies in property, building and construction: »

Blocking what the ombud can see, and spreading doubt among the personnel about what they can tell, weakens both the people’s government and the personnel’s rights. This is not the way to treat those who are to defend our country and it weakens the preparedness that those who are closest to the problem are gagged from notifying about it. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of such examples from the Armed Forces. The helicopter contingency, which Line Svingen announced, unfortunately turned out to have major consequences during the terrorist attack on 22 July.

It gives no one meaning to have a Defense Ombudsman who can be denied access to the Armed Forces. This means that the Storting does not trust its own control body’s ability to handle confidential information.

This spring, fortunately, the new parliamentary majority clarified that the goat will no longer fit the oat sack. In considering the Ombuds Board’s annual report, a joint Control and Constitution Committee stated that:

“The tribunal’s right of access must give the tribunal access to the information necessary for them to perform their tasks in accordance with the law” and emphasized that it is the inspector, and not the inspected, who must define what one needs access to in their assignment.

The Presidency of the Storting has so far only sent for consultation that the public should have easier access to the Ombuds Board’s documents, but not that the Ombuds Board should have increased access to the Armed Forces. I can say right away that if the presidency does not put forward a proposal to give the Defense Ombudsman full access, Rødt will do so.

When the right wing got through current practice, the AP, SP and SV proposed that the Ombuds Board should have the right to any information and any document required, “without prejudice to the duty of confidentiality or grading”. In other words, it should be natural for these parties to support such a proposal today.

For everyone in uniform, it is crucial to have an ombud who they know they can confide in. That you do not have to keep quiet about officers who abuse their power and potentially ruin your life, or about lack of preparedness that can have major consequences.

–