PARLIAMENTARY INTERROGATION A COMPARATIVE STUDY
Interrogation is one of the oversight means that Parliament has against the executive authority. It is one of the most dangerous means that Parliament enjoys, which enables them to hold the executive authority accountable and direct its work. Especially since Parliament’s work in oversight is the basic task in order to achieve the desired goal, which is to achieve the public benefit and the public interest through holding the executive authority accountable. Through interrogation, the legislative authority is able to warn the executive authority if it has abused or failed in its performance or violated the law and deviated from the path that it should take and bring it back to the right side. Accordingly, Parliamentary interrogation is one of the legislative authority’s tools in controlling the executive authority, whereby the representative enjoys directing interrogation (accusation) on a specific subject in order to reach the truth of the matter. Interrogation is the most dangerous means of parliamentary oversight, through which the matter ends with either the dismissal of the minister or the entire government. This is in the event that the interrogation is feasible and the minister or the government is unable to respond convincingly to the deputy who is the subject of the interrogation. But in the event that nothing is proven, the end of the interrogation is considered the parliament's blessing for the government's work to continue its work. Therefore, interrogation is considered a double-edged sword. It either withdraws confidence from the minister or the government, or enhances the work and performance of it. In this study, the concept of interrogation and its guarantees will be known in a first part, the conditions to be followed when presenting an interrogation in a second part, and the results of the interrogation in a third part.
Keywords: Parliamentary Interrogation, legislative Authority, Government