Defending Statehood from Novalić's Pragmatism

No matter how much he presents himself, recognizes himself, and legitimizes himself as a pragmatic technomanager in the position of prime minister of one of the BiH entities, this does not absolve him of responsibility for the perverted constitutional-legal solutions enacted by the Government he heads.

This refers to Fadil Novalić, the Prime Minister of the Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The FBiH Government, at its session held on February 18 this year, adopted a series of constitutionally questionable acts that could consequently have effects not only for FBiH but also for the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina itself.

Let us recall. It began with unconstitutional solutions in the formation of the Government's Intera d.o.o. Sarajevo. It continued with the controversial alteration of Interas d.o.o. Sarajevo, and the whole story concluded with an unclear outcome unknown to the public.

This was followed by legally "murky" actions concerning the state hospital building in Sarajevo, and concluded with indications of the purchase of the building of the economically exhausted Sarajevo-based Energoinvest.

The aforementioned Government session decided that FBiH would transfer and assign its ownership of a part of the North Camp in Mostar to the University "Džemal Bijedić" Mostar.

It remains unknown to the public, and to the author of this text, when and how the FBiH Government became the owner of the land in the North Camp. This claim by Novalić's government cannot be proven by an inspection of the ownership registers, nor by any other credible document. The possibility of acquiring ownership of land through succession is linked to resolving the status of state property of BiH and adopting a law on it. This law has not been passed, and only the titular owner of all state property – the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina – can pass it.

The act of transferring ownership itself is contrary to the Law on Prohibition of Disposal of State Property from 2005. The execution of this illegal decision by Novalić's government would have no legally valid effects and would be legally void in accordance with the prohibition law.

Novalić and his advisors, with the ease of a technomanager's pragmatism, are resolving the most difficult chapter of the continuity of BiH statehood. No matter how much Novalić claims to be a politically unburdened pragmatist, he must know that he is delving into the very core of the Bosnian puzzle. The sword with which he cuts this puzzle is changing the Dayton constitutional-legal character of BiH statehood and reducing it to the measure of its deniers.

The silence of the representatives of the titular owner of state property, the Council of Ministers and the Parliament of BiH, is concerning in all of this. Novalić, a populist, should know that a large part of the North Camp land is an ugly scar of unjust laws from the previous system, and that numerous Mostar families project their future and existence on the return of illegally confiscated property, now presumably, and incorrectly, by the Government of FBiH.

From the same environment as Novalić comes Croatian Prime Minister Orešković, who projects the entire vision of economic recovery for the over-indebted Republic of Croatia precisely on the preservation and responsible management of state property. It is to be hoped that Novalić and his Government will be warned of the possible consequences of their unconstitutional decisions and that things will be returned to a confirmation of loyalty to the establishment of BiH as a legal state on its European path.

The real fear is from Novalić's solutions from the draft law on forests of FBiH. Article 45 of that act from the same session of his Government represents the end of the statehood of Dayton BiH. More on that another time. Save us from Novalić's pragmatism.