Members of Parliament received the amendments to the disputed proposals yesterday and are expected to debate them today, at the end of an extraordinary parliamentary session, without public consultation and without the opportunity to fully assess all the harmful consequences of these legislative changes. This haste once again lays bare the interest in establishing one-party control over the security sector at any cost.
The proposed amendments to the Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Internal Affairs introduce new, broadly defined “security obstacles,” including formulations such as “maintains unauthorized contacts with operationally interesting persons” or “maintains ties” with persons who are “reasonably suspected” of belonging to certain groups (Amendment VII). These are operational rather than legally precise categories, not subject to judicial review and potentially based on unverified assessments and indications. Amendment V stipulates that a commission may, without conducting disciplinary proceedings, revoke a police officer’s rank on the basis of such assessments, while Amendment X prescribes termination of employment by operation of law for additional categories, namely: if the presence of psychoactive substances is established during a medical examination; upon the issuance of an order to conduct an investigation or the initiation of criminal proceedings for criminal offenses involving elements of organized crime and corruption, or for criminal offenses punishable by more than five years of imprisonment; as well as if an officer has provided data and information, or enabled access to data and information obtained in the course of performing or in connection with performing police duties, to unauthorized persons.
The previously criticized model is being proposed again: a commission appointed by the minister may determine the existence of a “security obstacle” without adversarial proceedings, without clearly prescribed procedural rules, without the obligation to inform the police officer of the reasons and evidence on which its decision is based, and without a genuine opportunity for the officer to challenge the allegations and present a defense. The absence of an obligation to provide reasoning and to disclose the factual and evidentiary basis of the decision renders the right to appeal and judicial protection essentially meaningless.
Particularly concerning is the new solution under which the mere issuance of an order to conduct an investigation for certain criminal offenses (which in itself represents the initiation of criminal proceedings) automatically leads to termination of employment. An investigation is initiated on the basis of grounds for suspicion, not established guilt, and a significant number of proceedings end without a conviction. Introducing the permanent consequence of termination of employment prior to a final judgment constitutes de facto punishment without a court decision and directly undermines the presumption of innocence, instead of, as previously, suspending the officer from duty until the conclusion of the proceedings.
At the same time, with regard to the Law on the National Security Agency, the amendments do not remedy any of the key issues previously raised by the public. There is no judicial oversight of surveillance measures, including tracking the location of citizens and access to databases of legal entities, including banks and non-governmental organizations, although the Constitutional Court of Montenegro already indicated in 2014 that such measures interfere with the right to privacy, and international mechanisms have warned that the existing solutions do not provide sufficient safeguards. The Agency retains broader powers than the police and prosecution, while being exempt from the public procurement system and regular reporting, further reducing transparency and democratic oversight.
The same shortcomings were also highlighted by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, Ana Brian Nougrères, who in September 2025 sent a letter to the Government expressing serious concern about the overly broad powers of the Agency and the lack of adequate judicial and independent oversight of its work. She warned that the disputed provisions do not provide sufficient safeguards for the protection of the right to privacy and requested clarification regarding their compliance with international standards. However, the new amendments have not further regulated any of the issues she identified, effectively disregarding her recommendations.
Human Rights Action believes that protecting the integrity of the police and state security is a legitimate objective, but it cannot be achieved through norms that allow revocation of rank and termination of employment without proceedings, without the right to defense, and without respect for the presumption of innocence, nor by granting broad and unchecked powers without judicial and public oversight. The adoption of such solutions would represent a serious step backward in terms of the rule of law and legal certainty.
The retroactive effect of the law is a particular problem. It may reasonably be concluded that the proponents of this law are concerned only with ensuring the formal entry into force of the disputed laws in order to dismiss political dissenters without any proceedings, even if such solutions are later challenged before the Constitutional Court or the European Court of Human Rights.
English