The Sámi Parliament has presented the Chancellor of Justice with a complaint referring to negligence by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry with respect to the negotiations on the Tenojoki fishing agreement and the preparation of the act bringing the agreement into force.
The Sámi Parliament is of the view that, in addition to the problems associated with the actual contents of the fishing agreement, during the agreement negotiations the conduct of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, representing the Finnish State in the matter, was highly irregular and unconstitutional.
The Finnish state is neglecting compliance with its own constitutional and international obligations, without even duly assessing and recognising as required by the Finnish Constitution the effects of its conduct on the rights of the Sámi as an indigenous people. The situation is unsustainable and poses a threat to the survival of the Sámi culture, as well as to Finland’s credibility as a western state governed by the rule of law and as a defender of basic and human rights, sums up Tiina Sanila-Aikio, President of the Sámi Parliament.
From the perspective of the Sámi, the signed Tenojoki fishing agreement and the resulting, new fishing regulation have far-reaching and broad implications for the region. The Sámi Parliament is of the view that the Tenojoki fishing agreement and regulation violate the protection of the Sámi culture, the protection of the property of the Sami, the principle of non-discrimination and the principle of self-determination as provided in Section 17, paragraph 3 of the Constitution . The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry reserved the rights of the Sámi Parliament to negotiate in accordance with Section 9 only after the agreement had been signed and the contents had been finalised in practice. By acting in such a manner, the Ministry by-passed the key, statutory opportunity, currently reserved for the Sámi, to have a say in any decisions affecting them as an indigenous people. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry should have reserved the Sámi Parliament a genuine opportunity, as provided in Section 9 of the Act on the Sámi Parliament , to negotiate and thereby influence the content of the agreement before representatives of the Finnish state were given a mandate to finalise the content with their signatures.
The Sámi Parliament regards the circumstances resulting from the conduct of the Finnish state as a clear violation of Section 17, paragraph 3 and Section 121, paragraph 4 of the Constitution. The seriousness of the shortcomings in the Ministry’s conduct are also highlighted by the fact that the public authorities’ obligation to take active measures to guarantee the observance of basic and human rights in this matter, under Section 22 of the Constitution, was knowingly by-passed during the negotiation of the agreement. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry did not seek to clarify or take due account of the effects of the agreement’s content on the fulfilment of the rights of indigenous people and, after the final consultation, submitted the agreement, which violates such rights as provided in Section 17, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, to Parliament for its consideration.
In its complaint, the Sámi Parliament requests that the Chancellor of Justice take note of the absence of the opportunity, as provided in Finnish law, for an indigenous people to participate in decisions affecting it, which enabled the violations of basic rights during the agreement negotiations and the related proposal for a legislative amendment. In addition, the Sámi Parliament requests that the Chancellor of Justice require the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to rectify the errors it has made and remedy any harm done. Finally, the Sámi Parliament asks the Chancellor of Justice to consider raising charges or presenting the police with a request for an investigation with respect to the matter, should the Chancellor of Justice suspect that any errors and negligence by public officials of the Ministry which resulted in violations of basic rights fulfil the definitional elements of an offence in public office, or a related offence.