Inspection pressure, 350 controls, and a system without oversight: Who controls the 'controllers' in Sarajevo Canton?

By: A.Čorbo-Zećo

The statement by the Rector of the University of Sarajevo, Tarik Zaimović, that this institution was subjected to as many as 350 inspection controls in a short period, has opened a series of questions that go far beyond the individual case.

This is an alarming figure that indicates possible abuses of the inspection apparatus, selective conduct, and serious cracks in the oversight system in Sarajevo Canton.

– Everything else is just a consequence. The inspections acted in a way that they believed they could do whatever they wanted at the university and that no one could say they were acting outside the legal framework. They considered themselves interpreters of laws, judges, and prosecutors at the same time, as well as a repressive instrument for enforcing decisions – Rector Zaimović stated for BHT.

Such an assessment does not come from a marginal institution, but from the largest and most significant higher education institution in the country. That is precisely why it requires a serious institutional response.

The figure of 350 inspection controls in a short period raises the key question of whether this is lawful and justified oversight or planned pressure? In comparable systems, such an intensity of control over one institution would be a signal for an internal audit of the inspectorate itself.

However, the Sarajevo Canton Administration for Inspection Affairs (KUIP) has not provided specific explanations as to who ordered such a large number of controls, by what criteria the University was singled out, and whether the Administration's management considered it "normal" for one institution to be almost continuously controlled.

And all of this came to light with the arrest of the chief cantonal education inspector Dalila Hakalović, suspected of abuse of office. Her arrest sheds new light on earlier allegations of repressive and arbitrary conduct by inspections.

The key question that now arises is 'could Hakalović have acted independently, without the knowledge and consent of the inspectorate's leadership'?

In a hierarchically structured inspection system, mass and frequent controls cannot be the result of individual whims. If they occurred, someone must have approved them, known about them, or at least tolerated them.

Despite this, KUIP only offers general statements about "swift and lawful conduct without exception," without any reference to the specific claims of the University Rector.

Parallel to this case, unofficial information has emerged in the public that investigative bodies are also considering the role of the chief cantonal budget inspector Dževad Paradžik in certain cases perceived as selective or planned.

Although this information has not yet been officially confirmed, the fact that it has surfaced in the context of current investigations is concerning.

Particularly problematic is the dual institutional role he performed, both as a budget inspector and simultaneously participating in the former anti-corruption body of Sarajevo Canton.

Such a concentration of oversight powers in the hands of one person carries a serious risk of system self-oversight, conflicts of interest, and non-transparent decision-making.

Otherwise, KUIP stated in its official announcement that it is "fully committed to respecting the rule of law" and that it gives "full support to investigative and judicial bodies." However, such phrases do not address the core of the problem.

Because the rule of law not only implies punishing individuals when the system fails, but also preventing abuses, clear control mechanisms, and leadership accountability.

The head of the Sarajevo Canton Administration for Inspection Affairs, Adis Mešić, as reported by Istraga, is a witness in the case of 'Ajanović and Hakalović', and it is necessary for him to comment on all of the above in this regard, especially to explain to the public what will happen with the cases that Hakalović handled, including the case of Sebija Izetbegović's diploma, as well as Elmedin Konaković's.

The case of the University of Sarajevo, the arrest of the chief education inspector, and a series of unanswered questions about the work of the inspectorate indicate a deeper problem in Sarajevo Canton: the system of control over the controlling bodies practically does not exist.

In a state of law, inspection is a tool for protecting public interest, not a means of pressure. If inspectors can act as legislators, prosecutors, and judges simultaneously, then it is no longer the rule of law, but institutional arbitrariness.

Therefore, the public rightly expects that the current investigations will not stop at individuals but will encompass the entire chain of responsibility. Because in an organized society, even the "controllers" must not remain beyond control.