CIKOTIĆ CASE: Prescribed procedures not followed for two decisions

(Patria) - At the trial of Selmo Cikotić, the current Minister of Security of Bosnia and Herzegovina accused of abuse of office and causing damage to the state budget of around 9.7 million convertible marks (KM), a witness for the BiH Prosecutor's Office said that for two decisions from 2010, the prescribed procedure was not followed and that consent was not given for new funds to be included in the contracts.

Dalibor Perić, who worked in the BiH Ministry of Defence from 2011 to 2014 and was a member of the Commission for Conducting Procedures for Disposal of Movable Military Property, said he was focused on implementing operations to dispose of surplus weapons, which were declared surplus by a Decision of the BiH Presidency.

He stated that he was familiar with the annexes from 2010 and noticed certain illogicalities. He added that besides inconsistencies in names, he also noticed a part related to compliance with legal procedures and decisions that did not follow the legal framework.

He explained that when a demilitarisation procedure is carried out, the Ministry of Defence submits a proposal to the Commission, which summarises three principles (sale – donation – destruction) regarding the disposal of movable military property, after which the proposal is sent to the Presidency, which makes the final decision.

Asked by prosecutor Mladen Furtula whether the procedure was followed regarding the Ministry of Defence annexes from March and October 2010, Perić stated that for these two decisions, the prescribed procedure was not followed.

“The annexes were not approved by the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina (…) The Commission for Conducting Procedures for Disposal of Movable Military Property should have dealt with all three principles, but it did not, and I do not know why; instead, other organisational units dealt with them,” said Perić, adding that the subject of the Ministry of Defence's handling can only be previously defined surpluses.

Asked by defence attorney Fahrudin Ibrišimović, Perić said he does not know whether the company “Scout” was selected before Cikotić's mandate and stated that he believes the basic contracts were amended due to the time difference from 2004 and 2005 to 2011, and that he knows the annexes did not change the contract price.

“Why do you insist on the need for the Presidency to give consent for something for which it has already given a decision to implement?” asked the accused Cikotić, to which the witness replied that consent was not given for any new funds to be included in those contracts.

The indictment charges Cikotić that, in the period from 30 December 2009 to 17 July 2011 in Sarajevo, as Minister of Defence, in prior agreement with the now-deceased assistant minister and other persons, with the aim of obtaining benefit, he abused his official position and favoured the company “Scout” d.o.o. Zagreb.

As stated, Cikotić abused his official position by, contrary to the Agreement on the Final Disposal of All Rights and Obligations over Movable Property that will continue to serve for defence needs from March 2008, and decisions of the BiH Presidency, adopting and signing two decisions approving the delivery, i.e., exchange of goods, and four decisions on the delivery of ammunition, and concluding four annexes to four basic contracts for the sale of non-perspective weapons and ammunition concluded during 2003 and 2004.

Witness Velimir Perić, who worked in the Ministry of Defence in 2010 as an expert advisor in the Logistics Sector, stated that he was partly involved in the procedure with the company “Scout” because he prepared the normative-legal part of the draft annex.

He said he did not participate in the negotiation process, but that a colleague informed him regarding the military part of the contract that one part of the weapons had been destroyed, which needed to be replaced with available assets, with the price remaining unchanged. He added that he does not know where the draft annex went after its creation.

Asked by the Defence, Perić stated that he does not know whether the annexes were sent for consent to the BiH Attorney's Office.

At today's hearing, the Prosecutor's Office also entered 11 pieces of material evidence into the record, including contracts and annexes to contracts for the sale of weapons and military equipment, and decisions approving the delivery of ammunition and exchange of goods.

The Defence raised objections of relevance and legality to four pieces of evidence, to which the Prosecutor's Office stated that it believes the submitted annexes are the most relevant.

The trial continues on 5 April.