another S37 question from Jens-Frederik Nielsen (...when the...

another S37 question from Jens-Frederik Nielsen (...when the going gets tough, the tough get going...)
***********
Pursuant to section 37 para. 1 of the Rules of Procedure of Inatsisartut, I ask the following questions

Naalakkersuisut.

Questions to Naalakkersuisut:

In connection with the consideration of EM2021 / 23 (the uranium ban), the Naalakkersuisut mentions in its response to questions from the Business and Mineral Resources Committee dated 20 October 2021 nothing about that on 8 October the same year has received an external legal assessment from the law firm Poul Schmith regarding the proposal. In this connection, I would like the following information:

Three times (Annex A of the Committee's report to EM2021 / 23, questions 5, 6 and 7), the Business

and the Mineral Resources Committee as to whether the Naalakkersuisut has had a legal assessment made. Not one only once does the Naalakkersuisut mention that a legal one has been received shortly before (October 8) assessment from the law firm Poul Schmith. What is the reason for actively hiding it

information for Inatsisartut?

2. Does the Naalakkersuisut believe that the external legal assessment was indifferent in relation to

the treatment of EM2021 / 23 (uranium ban)?

a. If so, please explain why the Naalakkersuisut explained it

developed

b. If not, please explain why Naalakkersuisut became active

concealed from Inatsisartut

3. Does the Naalakkersuisut believe that by concealing the information about the prepared external legal

assessment has violated section 6 of Inatsisartutlov no. 6 of 13 May 1993 on

Naalakkersuisut members' responsibility?

a. If so, I would like to know what consequences the Naalakkersuisut will have

consequence

b. In the negative, I would like to state why the Naalakkersuisut does not see it as a concealment of information that must be considered material to Inatsisartut's assessment of the case.

(Member of Inatsisartut Jens-Frederik Nielsen, Democrats)

Reasons

In answer to § 37 question number 48/2022, the Naalakkersuisut states that on 8 October 2021 a

external legal assessment from the law firm Poul Schmith regarding. possible consequences of introducing a

uranium ban (EM2021 / 23).

Despite the fact that the Business and Mineral Resources Committee repeatedly asks whether the Naalakkersuisut has made a legal assessment, the Naalakkersuisut does not mention anything about the external legal assessment in its response to the committee dated 20 October 2021 - ie 12 days after receiving the external legal assessment from the law firm Poul Schmith.

I find it obscene that the Naalakkersuisut has concealed this information from Inatsisartut. And I find it

also in violation of Inatsisartutlov no. 6 of 13 May 1993 on the liability of Naalakkersuisut members. Allow

me to quote § 6:

§ 6. A member of the Naalakkersuisut is sentenced to a measure, cf. § 10, if the person in question intentionally or of gross negligence overrides the duties incumbent on the member under the Inatsisartuts Act on Inatsisartut and Naalakkaersuisut or the legislation in general or according to the nature of his post.

PCS. 2. The provision in para. 1 shall apply mutatis mutandis if a member of the Naalakkersuisut gives

Inatsisartut incorrect or misleading information or during Inatsisartut's processing of a case fortier

information that is of significant importance to Inatsisartut's assessment of the case. "

The law is, as can be seen, quite clear. Naalakkersuisut must not conceal information that is of significant importance for Inatsisartut's assessment of a case. And it has, in my best belief, happened in this case.

I look forward to receiving your questions within 10 working days