The Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) requested the annulment of the first-instance verdict acquitting Fadil Novalic and others for abuses during the procurement of respirators worth 10.5 million BAM during the COVID-19 pandemic, while the defense requested the annulment of the verdict in the convicting part, declaring the Court incompetent or opening a trial before the Appellate Council of the State Court.
Dzermin Pasic, the State Prosecutor, stated that this is a simple procedure in which the corrupt actions of the accused were proven and that the first-instance verdict gives the impression that the decision was made in a way of taking the line of least resistance.
Vasvija Vidovic, the defense attorney of Fadil Novalic, the former Prime Minister of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH), stated that the majority of the members of the Judicial Council passed an acquittal verdict, without giving reasons for which crimes.
“He is acquitted of the criminal offense of money laundering, without a factual description, which has put us in a situation where we cannot determine whether the verdict exceeded the charge,” said Vidovic, stating that the verdict was incomprehensible.
Nina Karacic Brkovic, Novalic’s second defense attorney, said that the former Prime Minister was a co-signer of the payment order, whereby the transfer of funds was a legal and justified action for which he should have been acquitted, as well as the accused Milicevic.
Mirna Avdibegovic stated during her appeal that Fikret Hodzic, her client, was convicted of a criminal offense for which he was not charged and for which he could not defend himself.
“He was sentenced for abuse of position or authority, while the verdict does not contain an explanation as to why he is being sentenced for something for which he was not charged,” said Avdibegovic, stating that it was clear that it was an overreach.
Prosecutor Pasic stated in his response to the appeals of the Defense that he believes that during the presentation of the appeals, most of the judges were talked about, which in his opinion is an insult to the Court.
“These terms are not accidental, they are misused, and the dissenting opinion is not part of the verdict,” Pasic stated, adding that the trial before this court was a priority, and that the legislator’s intention cannot be a retrial.
Stanisa Gluhajic, chairman of the Appellate Council, said that the decision on the appeals will be made within a reasonable time, Federalna reports.
E.Dz.
