Vukoja, a path to disappearance: How Bećirović also called on the SDP to save themselves from shame and the legalisation of the state's disintegration

(Patria) - In democratic traditions where holders of judicial functions are elected by the legislative and executive authorities, expert commissions selected in accordance with the highest democratic and professional standards conduct competition procedures in which they insist on candidates who are respected members of the judicial and academic community.

The more complex the cases they have worked on and the more scientific papers and books they have written, the more points they receive. Work outside the judiciary hardly carries any points.

Among these candidates, differences are reduced to details from academic and especially professional work. Thus, in the end, it is "weighed" and "measured" who wrote an extra paragraph of a scientific paper, had more mentorships, whose legal reasoning passed the test of court decisions, and who used which professional term in the thousands of verdicts they wrote.

Sessions of expert commissions are public and broadcast via television and the internet. The discussions draw the attention of judges, prosecutors, professors, students, and the intelligentsia. Everyone is aware that in those moments, the judiciary is being shaped for decades to come.

However, in the procedure for electing a judge to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whom the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Federation elects, the difference between the two top-ranked candidates is more than 5,000 written verdicts, several dozen scientific papers, and 20 years of experience in the judiciary. On one side is a respected member of the judicial community, on the other a civil servant employed in the state administration.

How and in what way a civil servant made up for the difference of 5,000 written verdicts and 20 years of experience in the judiciary during the scoring process and ended up as the "best ranked" is unclear to both the public and the professional community.

As it turns out, it is also unclear to the member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Denis Bećirović.

Bećirović, for the sake of his conscience and the conscience of the SDP membership that values his advice, decided to publicly state that Marin Vukoja is not the best candidate and thus distance himself from the positions of Nermin Nikšić and the actions of the SDP, which is firmly tied to the HDZ in supporting the appointment of Marin Vukoja.

Bećirović clearly does not want to bear responsibility for historical shame and handing over the Constitutional Court of BiH to Čović and Dodik. Bećirović clearly does not want to bear responsibility for creating the legal prerequisites for the destruction of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, because if a majority is formed in the Constitutional Court of BiH according to Dodik's and Čović's wishes, it could mean that such a majority would not, even in the case of secession, make a decision declaring it unconstitutional.

Bećirović has no reason to remain inscribed in black letters in the history of this country, unlike Nermin Nikšić.

From Bećirović's statement, it is clear that the Presidency member does not trust the ranking of the commission that sat in secrecy, which with a stroke of the pen by members of NiP, SDP, and HDZ erased the difference of 5,000 verdicts, which denied a member of his legal advisory team attendance at the sessions of that same commission, and which ultimately, under HDZ control, driven by party rather than professional criteria, proposed Vukoja as the "best ranked candidate."

However, despite all the arguments, in the end, the SDP representatives themselves, or the entire Troika, will decide. They will decide whether they will remain inscribed in black letters in the history of this country or accept the lifeline offered to them by Bećirović.