THE NOVALIĆ CASE AND OTHERS What the budget inspector determined

A witness for the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that an inspection at the Federal Civil Protection Administration (FUCZ) could not determine on what basis "Srebrena malina" was selected as the best bidder for the procurement of respirators.

Jelena Znahor said that she and her colleague determined through inspection that FUCZ had violated the law regarding the spending of budget funds in relation to the offer from "Srebrena malina", writes Detektor. 

"We did not find any communication from FUCZ with the bidders... No correspondence was conducted, and we cannot determine how this offer was chosen as the best one," said Znahor, who was a federal budget inspector.

She was heard as an expert witness at the trial for abuses during the procurement of respirators involving Federal Prime Minister Fadil Novalić, suspended FUCZ Director Fahrudin Solak, Director of the company "F.H. Srebrena malina" Fikret Hodžić, as well as the company itself, and Federal Minister of Finance Jelka Milićević.

Znahor stated that the inspection was carried out in November 2020 at the request of the Prosecutor's Office, and by order signed by Minister Milićević. She noted that due to the short timeframe, the focus was on the respirators and the contract with "Srebrena malina", and that she and her colleague requested all relevant documentation from FUCZ.

The witness said they found nine offers for respirators, with "Srebrena malina's" offer being the last one. She mentioned that some offers had already been removed as part of the proceedings and that they only noted which offers were involved.

She stated that the contract for the procurement of respirators was made based on an offer dated April 2nd, which was not officially registered, and the delivery deadline was April 15th, with a provision for unilateral termination.

"We do not know if the legal entity's creditworthiness was assessed... what its capital is, whether it is capable of procurement... We only had the offer from 'Srebrena malina' for ACM respirators and the contract," said Znahor.

She indicated that the treasury payment form included a proforma invoice.

"I don't know which proforma invoice it was, as we did not have it available," said the witness.

She added that the form bore the date April 2nd, and the payment was made on April 3rd.

"The fact that it was dated April 2nd raised suspicion, as the contract did not exist then," said Znahor, adding that April 2nd also appeared in other accounting documentation.

In response to questions from Solak's Defense, the witness confirmed that some offers did not include information on delivery deadlines. Defense attorney Marsela Bajramović was interested in whether she knew if FUCZ had made phone calls to bidders, to which Znahor replied that the inspection was based on documentation.

"On what basis was the analysis conducted? Based on phone calls? That is unclear to me," said the witness.

The defense attorney then stated that none of the offers contained the quantity of respirators and the delivery deadline like the one from "Srebrena malina". Other Defense teams also questioned the witness about the offers, and the accused Hodžić asked: "How, after so much analysis, did you not realize that 'Srebrena malina's' offer was the best?"

The witness said that she did not evaluate the offers and that FUCZ should have done so, reiterating that no correspondence with bidders or analysis of offers was presented to the inspection.

Regarding the Defense's questions about the disputed date, Znahor stated that she does not have access to the treasury payment form, nor does she know if the form was filled out first to enter "Srebrena malina's" new transaction account.

She also said she does not know if anything can be changed in the treasury application, stating that an expert could be engaged on this matter.

The trial continues on February 11th.