Radončić and Others: Appointment of Ambassador Not Subject to Coalition Agreements

A Defence witness at the trial of Fahrudin Radončić and three others accused of obstructing the judiciary said that the appointment of an ambassador was not a subject of discussion among coalition partners.

Responding to cross-examination by the BiH Prosecutor's Office, Munib Jusufović stated that he was familiar with all official proposals of the Alliance for a Better Future (SBB) that were considered in agreement with the Party of Democratic Action (SDA).

The official proposal, as the witness said, is something proposed by the party's personnel commission, and nominations for ministers were proposed in accordance with the coalition agreement.

"The appointment to the position of ambassador was not at all a subject of coalition agreements. The member of the BiH Presidency is responsible for that," the witness said.

He added that he was aware that Nermana Hadžijahić had submitted her CV, but that he did not know what the agenda items were at the BiH Presidency session held in early January 2016, and that the appointment of the ambassador occurred suddenly.

Prosecutor Elvira Stanojlović objected to the witness's testimony, arguing that it was biased and contrary to previously presented evidence, and that he had attended this trial multiple times, writes detektor.ba.

Defence attorney Asim Crnalić said that attending the trial was not an issue, but also that the witness spoke about what he knew, which was in correspondence with the evidence presented.

Radončić is charged with, in agreement with Bakir Dautbašić, attempting to learn from Zijad Hadžijahić, an employee of the US Embassy in BiH, whether an investigation had been opened regarding pressure on witness Azra Sarić and, if so, to try to influence its closure. In return, according to the indictment, Hadžijahić was promised the appointment of his wife as ambassador to Slovenia or a Western European country.

The indictment also charges Radončić with ordering pressure on Sarić to give false testimony in the proceedings against Naser Kelmendi in Kosovo, while the executors were Bilsena Šahman and Dautbašić.

The State Court allowed the BiH Prosecutor's Office to contact Azra Sarić in the premises of the Witness Support Department in the presence of an authorised person, but only regarding the statements of the Defence witness, while prosecutors were prohibited from discussing the Kosovo proceedings. The conversation with the witness, as stated by the presiding judge Hasija Mašović, will be recorded and, if necessary, broadcast in the courtroom.

Before that, the Defence said it would withdraw from hearing Sarić, arguing that she was a "contaminated witness," and presented a document submitted by the BiH Court Administration showing how many times the witness was recorded during her stays at the BiH Prosecutor's Office.

"When you look at the recorded visits, Azra Sarić spent 18 and a half hours in the Prosecutor's Office, and it is absolutely impossible to determine what she said during that time, while her testimony in court lasted about ten hours. Preparing a witness is allowed, but instructing is not, and we do not know which of these occurred," said defence attorney Tatjana Savić.

At this hearing, the hearing of Defence witness Elvir Džibrić was also planned, and a third summons was delivered via the police administration, but Judge Mašović noted that the Court received a letter sent by fax from Lukavac in which the witness says he works in Germany, but intends to testify and stands by the statement he gave to the State Investigation and Protection Agency (SIPA).

The Prosecutor's Office objected to the Defence's proposal to read Džibrić's statement, arguing that the conditions for this were not met, and the witness will be summoned again.

The trial continues on 14 February.