N17.T4 – Milatović, Zirojević, and Vukšić undermined the independence of state prosecutors
HRA NEWSLETTER 17 – TOPIC 4
Over the past fourteen months, the Prosecutorial Council issued three opinions following complaints filed by state prosecutors, concluding that public statements and comments by the President of Montenegro Jakov Milatović, former presidential adviser Dejan Vukšić, and Member of Parliament Nikola Zirojević had undermined prosecutorial independence. During 2023 and 2024, no complaints were submitted by prosecutors or heads of prosecution offices concerning threats to prosecutorial independence. The first three complaints were filed in 2025.
The Rules of Procedure of the Prosecutorial Council define the undermining of prosecutorial independence as any action, pressure, threat, influence, instruction, interference or failure to act that directly or indirectly seeks to affect the independent, lawful and impartial conduct of a prosecutor contrary to their professional duties and the law.
Pursuant to Article 37 of the Law on the State Prosecution Service, the Prosecutorial Council concluded in all three cases that such actions had been undertaken and that they threatened the independence of state prosecutors.
President Milatović reacted after his criminal complaint against Deputy Prime Minister Nik Đeljošaj for the criminal offence of endangering security was dismissed. He stated that “the State Prosecution Service is sending the message that threats, pressure and political violence are acceptable and will go unpunished,” adding that “the public knows all of this, yet the prosecutor chooses to act as a lawyer for politicians,” and that “the dismissal of the complaint threatens to push the state into anarchy.”
The Prosecutorial Council concluded that in this way “the President of the State undertook actions and exerted inappropriate influence and pressure through the media in an attempt to affect the independent, lawful and impartial conduct of the state prosecutor,” as well as the independence of the State Prosecution Service, given that the prosecution was at that time required to decide on the President’s complaint.
Former presidential adviser Dejan Vukšić commented on the same case, stating: “Assess for yourselves whether this is the decision of a state prosecutor or the lawyer of Nik Đeljošaj.”
The Prosecutorial Council assessed this statement as an abuse of legitimate public criticism and concluded that Vukšić’s conduct constituted “external interference with the independence of the state prosecutor, through an attempt made via the media to influence the prosecutor’s independent, lawful and impartial work.”
Member of Parliament Nikola Zirojević made public statements after a complaint had been filed against him by Zdenka Popović for alleged insults contained in his statement. He wrote:
“Prosecutor Dino Lukač issued an order for me to be questioned less than three and a half hours after Zdenka Petrol read my statement. In the meantime, Zdenka had to go and file a complaint, then come to the prosecutor, the prosecutor had to open a case and issue an order to take my statement. Well done, Dino — you earned the variable bonus I voted for,” and added that “it is clear that there is coordination between Zdenka Petrol and the competent prosecutor.”
In its opinion, the Prosecutorial Council stated that such remarks publicly targeted a state prosecutor and implied political bias, while also representing an attempt by a Member of Parliament to influence the prosecutor’s independent, lawful and impartial conduct.
These cases point to serious challenges faced by the judicial system in Montenegro. Political pressure and verbal attacks on state prosecutors threaten the integrity of the State Prosecution Service and contribute to a decline in public trust in its work. It is nevertheless encouraging that the Prosecutorial Council issued reasoned opinions in all three cases, after which the President, his adviser and the Member of Parliament did not make further public statements.
English