Judicial Council candidates: Aleksovska got 100 points from the VMRO-DPMNE MP and 43 from the DUI MP

The Judicial Council is the body that appoints and dismisses judges. If there's one place in the country that should be occupied by people without party fingerprints, it's there. And this week parliament showed how far that is from reality: the candidates for the seat vacated by Pavlina Crvenkovska, who retired before her term ran out, came for interviews - and instead of the law, most of the talk was about social media and victory parties.

"Macedonia is alive with you" and a party in Novo Selo

Kumanovo lawyer Emilija Aleksovska, an assistant professor of criminal procedure law, opened by talking about independence and the courage "to say no". She was then confronted with comments on X under posts by Prime Minister Hristijan Mickoski, with messages such as "Macedonia is alive with you, ours and proud again" and "Cela da e" ("May it be whole", a nationalist slogan). Aleksovska replied that the profile hadn't been active for years, that she didn't remember such a comment and that it might not even be her profile.

The second candidate, Strumica lawyer Džoko Dikov, was confronted with a photo from the victory celebration of the mayor of Novo Selo, in the company of VMRO-DPMNE members. He said he isn't a member of any party and that as a lawyer he has represented clients from various parties, including DUI and SDSM. Levica claims that Dikov also represented mayor Gjorgje Božinov in court cases against environmental activists who protested against an aluminium foundry.

The scoring says more than the interview

The real story is in the selection committee's minutes. The committee chair, VMRO-DPMNE MP Aleksandar Veljanovski, gave Aleksovska the maximum 100 points, judge Sanja Lazova Stojanova 95, and Vlen MP Valbona Adili Emini 90. On the other side, Sanja Lukarevska of SDSM gave her 50, Rina Ajdari of DUI 43, and civil society representative Ivana Petkovska just 10 out of a possible 40 for experience - and zero for vision and for her answers.

A gap between 100 and 43 points for the same interview is hard to explain with the law: the scores fall almost along party lines. Veljanovski says he gave the points for clear answers and that if there had been a party background, the results wouldn't have been uniform but more varied. Lukarevska says they didn't get answers, but they do know about the social media posts.

Parliament's Committee on Elections and Appointments then confirmed Aleksovska and Dikov as nominees with seven votes in favour and none against. The final decision lies with the plenary. Meanwhile the election for the other empty seat on the Council, that of Selim Ademi, is stuck. When party-line scores get voted through unanimously and Ademi's successor still hasn't been chosen, how much is left of the story of an independent judiciary?