PRESIDENT OF THE BELGRADE BAR ASSOCIATION: “Among those pardoned by Vučić are Goran Vesić and his former associates, all accused in the canopy collapse case!”

The issue of pardons is not a matter of someone’s free will or goodwill, but of citizens’ right, as the holders of sovereignty, to know who has been pardoned and why, said Vladimir Prijović, president of the Belgrade Bar Association, demanding an answer as to who the people pardoned by the former president in the final days of his term were.

“This government has demonstrated great irresponsibility and a lack of respect for the law and the Constitution. On several occasions, its members have committed various abuses of their powers. Therefore, I do not expect an answer from them to that question (who was pardoned), even though this should be perfectly normal in a democratic society,” Vladimir Prijović said, N1 reported.

The Belgrade Bar Association raised this question with Serbia’s acting president, Ana Brnabić, as well as with caretaker Justice Minister Nenad Vujić.

Prijović stressed that a pardon is not a matter of someone’s goodwill or free will, but an issue of the rule of law and citizens’ right to know who has been pardoned and why.

Since yesterday, the public has also been asking whether those pardoned include people mentioned by Radar in an article about newly discovered correspondence from the Sky app, which allegedly indicates that Darko Šarić financed the Serbian Progressive Party.

Prijović noted that criminal proceedings are probably underway against most of the 49 people who were pardoned, and recalled that the pardon procedure must be initiated at the proposal of the justice minister.

“We have a wall of silence, and that creates a situation in which all kinds of stories and speculation can easily spread. Personally, I have received information from various sources that the list also includes people accused in the canopy collapse case and in the General Staff case — namely Goran Vesić, Anita Dimoska, Jelena Tanasković and others. In other words, it includes individuals who may be directly responsible for the deaths of 16 people. If that is indeed the case, it is hardly surprising that such information is being concealed, because it would provoke justified public outrage and dissatisfaction ahead of the elections,” he said.

“If the Ministry of Justice knows nothing, that is either a lie or an unlawful act”

Prijović described the move as a desperate measure.

“On the other hand, when the Ministry of Justice says it knows nothing about this, that is either an outright lie or an unlawful act — there is no third possibility. Under the law, the justice minister is required to initiate the procedure ex officio. If the Ministry tells you it knows nothing about it, that means either its officials are lying or the pardon procedure was unlawful,” he said.

For context, the Ministry of Justice has issued no official statement on the matter. Beta reported that a source at the Ministry, whose name it did not disclose, said they did not know whom Vučić had pardoned and that they would not participate in implementing the decision.

“The fact that there has been no official statement is itself evidence of the Ministry’s irresponsible conduct. On the one hand, there is a statement given to the media, but there is no official response. Citizens, as the holders of sovereignty, are being denied crucial information, and this is happening ahead of the elections,” the president of the Belgrade Bar Association emphasized.

Were criminal offenses committed in the course of these pardons?

Asked what criminal offenses may have been committed if the president issued pardons without a proposal from the Ministry of Justice, and whether such a decision would be legally valid, Prijović said that one possible offense would be abuse of official position.

“Other criminal offenses may potentially be involved as well. In any case, such an act by the president cannot be lawful. Whether it could potentially be challenged is another question. If a court were to discontinue proceedings or issue a judgment of acquittal on the basis of such a pardon decision, depending on the stage of the criminal proceedings, all we can do now is speculate. We will know everything only after the elections,” he said.

If it turned out that the announcement of the pardons was just that — an announcement — its purpose would be purely political and it would provide further evidence that the former president had abused his office, as well as an even clearer example of campaigning by public officials, he added.

“False claims about prosecutor Bojana Savović’s speech — a message to the judiciary to turn a blind eye in the coming period”

Following prosecutor Bojana Savović’s participation in the Seventh Bar Association Conference organized by the Belgrade Bar Association, several pro-government media outlets reported that she had threatened to have prosecutors and judges arrested.

The Belgrade Bar Association denied the claims. According to Prijović, Informer published its rebuttal in a “devious and unlawful manner,” as did Vaseljenska.

“All those media outlets simultaneously reported, while the conference was still underway, a completely false story claiming that she had allegedly threatened to have judges and prosecutors arrested. Not only did that never happen, but the claim was so untrue that we even included a link in our rebuttal showing exactly what had been said,” he explained.

Prijović believes that someone was apparently so troubled by a panel discussing police torture and the abuse of police powers that they attempted to divert attention from the key issue through a spin campaign.

“The Belgrade Bar Association is clearly a thorn in the side of this state. They are also bothered by the fact that there is no loyalist in my position. But I believe this message was not directed at lawyers, or even at Bojana Savović personally, but at all judges and prosecutors who think independently and work in accordance with the law and the Constitution — a message telling them to turn a blind eye to their oath in some way in the coming period. This is particularly significant given what awaits us on election night and in the period that follows. We know that an independent judiciary and judicial independence offer a way out of this lawlessness and unconstitutionality,” he concluded.