The Chief Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Milanko Kajganic, stated yesterday at a public hearing in Sarajevo that only the Republic Public Prosecutor’s Office of Republika Srpska (RS) is competent for any possible abuses during the establishment, signing, execution, and termination of the concession agreement with the Slovenian Viaduct since the concession was established by RS institutions.
Responding to questions from members of the Finance and Budget Committee of the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH (PABiH) and the Anti-Corruption Committee of the House of Representatives of the PABiH at the public hearing, Kajganic stated that at the end of 2024, the Special Department of the Republic Public Prosecutor’s Office of RS issued an order not to conduct an investigation based on the reports submitted to them by the RS Ministry of Justice.
He added, however, that a case exists at the District Public Prosecutor’s Office in Banja Luka, which was formed on the basis of a report submitted by the RS Ministry of Internal Affairs against three persons, related to the amount of the claim in that arbitration – specifically, whether the amount of that claim was possibly the result of criminal acts such as presenting fictitious investment amounts or abuses during the invoicing of certain activities and services within the concession relationship.
Kajganic said that since the arbitration award by the tribunal in Washington – which is final – was recognized in BiH as a domestic court ruling, and that non-enforcement of court decisions in BiH constitutes a criminal offense, the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH has formed a case based on a report by the representative of Viaduct due to the non-enforcement of the mentioned ruling, and that members of the Council of Ministers of BiH and the Presidency of BiH have been reported.
The Chair of the Anti-Corruption Committee of the House of Representatives of the PABiH, Branislav Borenovic, pointed out that he finds it unrealistic that the concessionaire Viaduct had not invested a single BAM in 10 years before the termination of the concession, and that when it sued the RS Government, it was awarded damages amounting to several tens of millions of BAM in two rulings by courts of that entity – raising questions about the accountability of certain judicial institutions for that, N1 writes.
