Human Rights Action (HRA) protests statements made by Defense Minister Dragan Krapović against lawyer Veselin Radulović, in which, instead of a reasoned response to the criminal complaints filed, the Minister resorts to personal disqualifications, accusations of ties to organized crime, and announcements of further reckoning with Radulović — and with anyone else who dares to point to possible abuses of power. Three UN rapporteurs already expressed concern to the Government of Montenegro over this kind of pressure in November 2025.

Minister Krapović’s statements that lawyer Radulović, because of filing criminal complaints against officials of the Democrats, is “part of a team that includes criminal clans and organized criminal groups,” that he is “just a small screw” in it, the message that he will “answer as a participant in the hunt,” that “one instructed MP has already been thrown under the speeding political train,” and that “Radulović is next,” constitute unacceptable threats.

In addition, Minister Krapović, without any evidence, accused lawyer Radulović of being part of a group of persons “linked and organized with the intent to endanger the safety of the Director of the Police Administration through hybrid activity,” because in that case Radulović had publicly represented two individuals accused of intending to endanger the police director’s safety by filming the expensive “Maybach” vehicle he was riding in.

Filing criminal complaints is a basic right of every citizen. Their merit is not decided by ministers or other political officials, but by the competent state prosecutor’s offices and courts. It is unacceptable for the authorities to disqualify a complainant in advance, to attribute ties to organized crime to him without evidence, or to portray him as part of an alleged political conspiracy.

We recall that the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers has already stated that the Government of Montenegro must ensure conditions in which lawyers can carry out their profession without interference or intimidation. Lawyers have always also acted through public statements. The conduct of a member of the Government, Minister Krapović, is directly contrary to this standard.

It is worth recalling that lawyer Radulović has so far filed 14 criminal complaints against the Democratic Montenegro party, its officials, and other related individuals, pointing to suspicions of legal violations and abuse of office.

Instead of threatening the person who filed those complaints, the Minister — or his colleagues from Democratic Montenegro — should have publicly and with arguments explained, for example:

• If the Agreement between the Government of Montenegro and the Government of France entered into legal force on April 23, 2026, on what legal basis did the Ministry of Defense conclude a commercial contract with a French company in November 2024 for the procurement of patrol boats worth over €120 million, and on what basis was the application of the Law on Public Procurement excluded?
• How was the investor of the hotel in Baošići allowed to continue construction work despite a final decision by the Urban Planning and Construction Inspectorate prohibiting further construction, and who decided that this decision would not be enforced?
• Was the Sutorina–Žvinje panoramic cable car project carried out without a lawfully obtained environmental permit and environmental impact assessment, and if so, why?
• Were unverified or false operational data used, without the legally required checks and appropriate control mechanisms, in the security vetting procedures for admission to the Police Administration and for the suspension of police officers?
• Were the public procurement procedures for official vehicles for the Police Administration and for radar systems carried out in accordance with the Law on Public Procurement and other regulations?
• Who are the individuals who, according to the report of the State Audit Institution, were employed at CEDIS unlawfully, without a public announcement or competition, and on what legal basis did they enter into an employment relationship — and so on.

The public has the right to receive clear and reasoned answers to these and other questions, instead of seeing those who ask them attacked.

It is particularly concerning that the public still has no information today about the outcome of the state prosecutor’s handling of these complaints, even though the legally prescribed deadlines for the prosecutor’s decision on the first group of complaints — filed nine months ago — have already expired.

We call on the Special State Prosecutor’s Office to urgently examine all the allegations in the complaints and inform the public of the actions taken.

We appeal to the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole to ensure that its members respect international freedom-of-expression standards, according to which holders of public office are required to tolerate a higher degree of public criticism regarding their conduct, and to respond to criticism with arguments, if they have any, rather than with personal insults and threats.