Statement by Deputy Prime Minister Momo Koprivica

The Constitutional Court session on 25 December, which has been the subject of manipulation by representatives of the destructive opposition, reveals the true intentions behind the attempts to politically control the Constitutional Court by parties of the former government. It is evident that the entire scheme was motivated by the desire to ensure that judges whose mandates had constitutionally ended would still be part of the Constitutional Court on that date. The goal was to secure a majority to approve constitutional complaints aimed at overturning detention decisions for former Chief Special Prosecutor Milivoje Katnić and former Assistant Police Director Zoran Lazović, thereby obstructing and nullifying the work of the Special State Prosecutor's Office and regular courts in the fight against organized crime and corruption.

These constitutional complaints were on the agenda precisely at that time, necessitating the participation of judges whose mandates had expired. This would have led to outcomes similar to those in the cases of Petar Lazović, Miloš Medenica, Saša Čadenović, and many others.

For instance, the Constitutional Court, in its decisions on Petar Lazović's constitutional complaints on 12 October 2022 and 16 June 2023, rejected his appeals and upheld the conclusions of the lower courts. However, when ruling on another constitutional complaint from the same individual on 27 March 2024, the Court accepted it, this time arguing that the lower courts had presented superficial and stereotypical reasoning. How is it possible that these alleged deficiencies were not identified in the two previous rulings on the same matter?

Moreover, when addressing Lazović's constitutional complaint on 27 March 2024, which the Court approved, it was noted that the risk of flight must be assessed in light of factors such as the suspect's character, morality, residence, occupation, assets, and family ties. It is astonishing that none of these factors were deemed relevant during the earlier decisions rejecting the same individual's complaints.

Why did the Court deviate from its previously expressed position in the case of the same complainant? Why is there no explanation in the ruling to justify this deviation? What motives are behind this shift? Are these motives connected to the ambitions and efforts of certain judges to remain in office beyond the constitutional limits of their mandates?

Similarly, the Court deviated from its earlier position expressed in the rejection of Miloš Medenica’s constitutional complaint on 16 May 2023. On 23 April 2024, it accepted Medenica’s complaint despite the fact that he had previously been a fugitive and that there were documented incriminating messages related to his actions. These facts were noted by the Constitutional Court in its earlier decision rejecting his complaint. Such blatant inconsistency is shocking and appears far from accidental.

All of this demonstrates that the intention of the parties from the former government was to turn the Constitutional Court into a Court of Obstruction — a tool to ensure that partisan judges hold the keys to prison cells in Spuž, unlocking the doors for individuals like Katnić, Veljović, and Lazović, who have been held accountable by justice.

The Constitutional Court, both in its constitutional and linguistic essence, has halted unconstitutional and, more aptly, supra-constitutional ambitions of those accustomed to dictating verdicts via SMS or Viber.

The Democratic Party of Socialists aimed to undermine all efforts of the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office, the Special State Prosecutor’s Office, and the Special Police Department by placing justice in the hands of the "installed trio" whose mandates had constitutionally expired. A single stroke of their pens could have nullified hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence documenting criminal activity and organized efforts.

Freedom is not bestowed; freedom is earned.