Parliament Speaker Andrija Mandić refused to testify before the Basic Court in Podgorica today in the proceedings against his nephew Danilo Mandić.
The court summoned him to testify in the case.
The head of parliament announced in court that he is the biological uncle of the accused Danilo Mandić. The judge had previously informed him of his right to refuse to testify due to family ties, which Mandić exercised.
"I will exercise my legal right and not testify," said Mandić, adding that since he "was in the dock for a long time," he knows "what these trials look like and how they can be interpreted."
Danilo Mandić's mother, Ljiljana Mandić, also refused to testify for the same reason.
Danilo Mandić is charged with several criminal offenses - against public safety, causing minor bodily harm, illegal possession of weapons and explosives, and confiscation of a vehicle.
According to the charges, on the night between April 18 and 19 of this year, at around 3:40 a.m., in the center of Podgorica, at the intersection of Bulevar Ivana Crnojevića and Ulica Marka Miljanova, Mandić allegedly blocked the path of Aris Turković and Darko Perović and shot at them, while driving an official car of the Parliament of Montenegro, a "Range Rover".
Perović refused to testify again, court fines him another 900 euros
Injured witness Darko Perović, who refused to testify at the previous hearing and was fined 800 euros for it, said in the courtroom today that he did not know why he was brought before the court. Judge Ivana Becić read him the indictment and informed him about the case.
"I won't pay 800 euros, I don't have that. I don't have the conditions. I won't tell you anything and I won't answer your questions," said Perović.
The judge again warned him of his legal obligation to testify, after which Perović repeated: "I will not answer your questions, I will not give you a statement, I want to talk to the prosecutor."
She explained to him that at this stage of the proceedings he could not give a statement to the prosecutor, but Perović still refused to cooperate.
The court ruled to fine Perović an additional 900 euros.
As the witness is an injured party and refuses to testify without any basis in the Criminal Procedure Code, the court dismissed him from further monitoring of the main trial.
Turković: I was so drunk that I don't remember anything
Injured witness Aris Turković said that he stands by the statement given during the investigation, but that he does not remember many of the circumstances of the critical evening.
"We were sitting at a table, I was so drunk that I don't remember anything. I woke up in pain, the police came, they took me to the hospital," said Turković. He stated that they were sitting in the bar 697, and that he arrived in his BMW, sober. "We were sitting in the garden, and then we went inside because it was cold."
When asked if anyone attacked him, he replied: "No, they were all friends." He said that he was with Darko Perović and "Manda", and that Perović had been his friend since childhood: "I was sitting between them." He added that he did not remember any photography taking place: "I did not see it."
He said his car keys were missing and he didn't know how he got home. "I think I drank a beer, I'm not sure about that either - 10 to 15 beers. That's enough for me, I don't usually drink, I rarely drink."
Judge Ivana Becić asked him what amount of alcohol caused his memory loss. Turković replied: "I felt sick in the bar, I felt nauseous, I started to go home, I don't remember anything anymore."
He said that after seeing that he was injured, he tried to find out what happened to him, but that "nobody knows anything." He stated that he had neither seen nor heard from Darko Perović because he had gone to get his wound changed. "The waitress that night was Mina Vujković," he added.
Turković said that after he was detained for this incident, he was "immediately taken to serve the six-month prison sentence that you sentenced me to," addressing Judge Becić.
The judge pointed out the differences between what he said to the prosecutor and his testimony today. Turković could not remember who brought him home and said he had no information about it.
The prosecutor objected to the statement, believing that it was not given to ease the defendant's position, "but rather to completely avoid guilt."
Turković stated that he was not joining the criminal prosecution of Mandić.
Turković's defense attorney, attorney Damir Lekić, said: "If Turković really knew who shot him, he would have said so."
Gajević: He came home drunk before dawn, I thought he had fallen.
Aris Turković's common-law wife, Jelena Gajević, said that Turković handed her the bank card she needed around one o'clock that evening in front of Shop 697, after which she went home. She said that his godmother Mina Vujković brought him home before dawn.
"I was really angry because he was drunk and I told the godmother to put him down there. He rarely drinks, he has a hard time with alcohol and someone always brings him home when he drinks," said Gajević. She said she was woken up by a banging on the door.
"Around 2-3 o'clock in the afternoon the next day, he was sleeping late and said, 'Look, I'm hurt, I must have fallen or hit myself somewhere.' I didn't take it as a serious injury." She said he was wearing jeans that she had thrown away because they were burnt "because he was supergluing something that day," and that he was wearing a dark sweater.
She said he was already tipsy when he gave her the card: "I wanted to go out to take him out, he said: 'Don't go out, there are all men here,' and I went home." She added that she had worked at the 697 location for years, and that the waitress Mina Vujković started working there a few years after her.
Vujković: I stayed to clean the place, then drove him home in his car
Waitress Mina Vujković said that of the team that was in the bar that night, Aris Turković was "the most familiar to her because he was her best man," but that she had communication with everyone in the bar. "Everything was normal and usual," she said.
She stated that Turković waited for her in front of his car.
"I drove him home and dropped him off at his wife's place, in his car. I told him to wait for me while I cleaned the place and did an inventory and took him away."
Judge Ivana Becić asked her why her voice was shaking and if she was feeling uncomfortable, which she denied. The judge stated that she did not want anyone in her courtroom to feel unsafe.
"I didn't notice anything unusual about him, he couldn't talk on the drive home," said Vujković. She explained that after closing the store, she stayed to take inventory and clean for another hour.
She stated that Aris lives near the Catholic church, and that the car was parked in front of the shop, two meters from the entrance. "We got to his house by going through Maslin to the Kalimero car wash, where we took a U-turn to his house. When I was moving through the city, I didn't notice anything unusual."
Čađenović: The President often drives his own car when he has private obligations
Witness Mihailo Čađenović said that he was the driver of the Speaker of the Parliament, Andrija Mandić. He stated that he left his official vehicle and the keys "in one place" that day.
"Two days before that, I was driving a vehicle. Most of the time, I drive the vehicle or my colleagues from the Police Directorate, they have the authority to do so," said Čađenović.
He added that the lawyer informed him that the vehicle should be handed over to the police: "He called me in the evening and said that the police were looking for the car."
When asked by the judge whether Andrija Mandić uses the car independently, he said that he "often drives the car alone when he has some private obligations."
Lekić: I was tipsy, I don't remember the details of that evening
Witness Zvjezdan Lekić said that he was in town that night, in bar 697, where he consumed alcohol and then went home.
"I was sitting with Danilo Mandić and Aco Boričić. I don't remember how long I was in the bar," Lekić said. He said he came in his car, which he thinks is an Audi A1, but he couldn't remember if they all left the bar together: "It's possible that we came together, it's possible that I came alone after being invited, I don't remember."
He added that after the critical event he was at home and that no one was looking for him. "I turned off my phone for seven or eight days because it was a holiday, because it was Easter, and my phone is tied to work. I have a carpet cleaning business in Zagorič."
He said he did not know which vehicle Mandić and Boričić had used to get to the bar. "As far as I remember, I returned home in my own car, I was intoxicated," Lekić concluded.
The next hearing is scheduled for January 23.
DON'T MISS IT
Chronology of events
As previously reported, on the night between April 18 and 19, 2025, at around 3:40 a.m., in the center of Podgorica, at the intersection of Bulevar Ivana Crnojevića and Ulica Marka Miljanova, a shooting occurred in which Darko Perović and Aris Turković were wounded.
As previously announced by the Police Directorate, Danilo Mandić blocked the path of Perović and Turković in the official vehicle of the Parliament, a "Range Rover", and fired several shots in their direction, as a result of which both of them sustained injuries to their legs.
Initially, the incident was classified as attempted aggravated murder and illegal possession and carrying of weapons and explosives.
A day later, on April 20, Mandić, according to the Police Directorate and his lawyer, came to the Podgorica Security Department accompanied by his defense attorney and was deprived of his liberty by order of the Higher State Prosecutor's Office.
His defense attorney, lawyer Miroje Jovanović, stated at the time that Mandić came to the police after "a story emerged that he allegedly participated in the incident."
On April 21, the Higher Court in Podgorica ordered Mandić to be detained for up to 30 days due to the risk of flight, influencing witnesses and possible repetition of the crime. Police said at the time that the wounded Perović (53) refused to show identification when police arrived at the scene late at night on April 19, and then fled, causing a traffic accident, after which he was deprived of his liberty.
According to a statement from the Police Directorate at the time, immediately after learning about the incident, police officers went to the scene, where they found a man who refused to provide them with his personal documents. As the Police Directorate said at the time, Perović left the scene in a Škoda vehicle with Podgorica license plates, obstructing the police officers in carrying out their official duties and ignoring a stop sign. In an attempt to escape, the vehicle crashed into concrete pillars on Novaka Miloševa Street, after which the police stopped the driver and determined that it was Perović.
Due to an injury to his right lower leg, which the police noticed during the stop, Perović was referred for medical attention to the Clinical Center of Montenegro (KCCG).
The test determined that he was under the influence of alcohol, with a concentration of 0,66 g/kg, as well as cocaine. Due to several violations of the Traffic Safety Act and the Public Order and Peace Act, Perović was deprived of his liberty, and a day later, on April 20, 2025, the Court of Misdemeanors found him guilty and fined him 3.450 euros.
The issue of the official vehicle of the Parliament that Mandić was driving, namely the "Range Rover" that the Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT) had previously confiscated from criminals and that was in the vehicle fleet of the Parliament of Montenegro, was also raised. It was investigated who had given Mandić the keys to the vehicle, and the Basic State Prosecutor's Office (ODT) in Podgorica ex officio opened a special case to check for possible misuse of that vehicle.
The ODT confirmed in September that a separate indictment was filed against Mandić on June 30 for the criminal offense of confiscating a vehicle, namely the use of the official Parliament "Range Rover" on the night of the shooting.
It was later decided that a single proceeding would be conducted against Mandić, and he was charged with a serious offense against public safety, minor bodily harm, illegal possession of weapons and explosives, and confiscation of a vehicle.
Mandić's defense attorney, Jovanović, said at the time that Mandić was only charged with statements from the injured parties and that no on-site investigation had been conducted, which the Higher State Prosecutor's Office confirmed.
According to them, a formal investigation into the shooting in the city center was not conducted because the police did not receive an order from the prosecutor's office to do so. According to the prosecutor's office, the competent authorities were notified of the incident with a significant delay, only at 07:47 a.m., which, they said, was one of the reasons why the investigation was not conducted immediately.
Although a formal investigation was not conducted, the police announced that they had inspected and searched the immediate and wider area of the incident several times, questioned eyewitnesses and seized surveillance camera footage in order to collect evidence. Adequate files were also compiled with accompanying photo documentation. The police stated that these measures were taken in accordance with professional rules and that they provided relevant information for the further course of the investigation.
The defense attorney said that this omission by the prosecution affects the weight of the evidence, because the case is based almost exclusively on the statements of the injured parties.
According to the testimony of the witness-injured person Darko Perović, for whom Prosecutor Jelena Protić issued an order for forcible bringing because he failed to appear for questioning twice, he told the Higher State Prosecutor's Office that Mandić was not the person who shot at him. Perović stated that he was shot by the shortest of three younger men, aged between 23 and 25, who had previously "flashed" their lights at him while he was standing at a traffic light.
He said that that night, while he was waiting for the green light, three young men got out of a white car, which he believes was a "Reno Clio" or "Peugeot 205", the shortest of whom had a gun in his hand. Perović, he said, tried to escape, but the man shot him in the left lower leg, after which the attackers returned to the vehicle and drove away from the scene.
In his statement, he also stated that he would not join the criminal prosecution of Danilo Mandić, "because there is no reason to," but that he would join the prosecution of the person who shot him, if he is identified.
Perović explained that he was at the "697" bar that evening, and that he was intoxicated and had consumed drugs.
He added that he had suffered threats and blackmail from the police to accuse Danilo Mandić of wounding him. The Police Department subsequently filed criminal charges against him for making a false report.
The second injured party witness, Aris Turković, claimed before the prosecutor on April 23 that he did not remember a single detail of the events of April 19 at dawn, when he was wounded, and that he only saw the injury when he woke up at home, but that he did not know how it occurred.
"I have a great relationship with Perović Darko and Mandić Danilo. We drank a lot of alcohol and at one point I felt sick. I know that someone took the car key and that I left the bar, and from that moment on I don't remember anything else. The next thing I remember is waking up at home and feeling pain in my leg. I didn't know what happened. The police came, and when they saw that I had an injury, they immediately took me to the KCCG for medical attention and they performed examinations there, and I had a foreign object left inside me. After the examinations were completed, I went to give a statement to the police and I said everything the same as I did today. That's all I remember," Turković told the prosecutor at the time. Responding to a question from prosecutor Jelena Protić, he said that no one put pressure on him, nor influenced what kind of statement he would give.
He also did not join the criminal prosecution against Mandić.
In May, the High Court extended Mandić's detention for another two months, and the Basic State Prosecutor's Office began hearings in a case regarding the possible misuse of the Parliament's official vehicle.
Meanwhile, the Parliament of Montenegro announced that Danilo Mandić was never employed by that institution.
In early June, the Higher State Prosecutor's Office announced that Mandić's actions did not meet the elements of the criminal offense of attempted aggravated murder, which is why the case was transferred to the Basic State Prosecutor's Office.
According to the statement, the evidence collected leads to suspicion of causing general danger, serious bodily harm, and the unauthorized possession and carrying of weapons and explosives.
In mid-August, Mandić's defense attorney informed the public that the Constitutional Court had accepted the constitutional appeal and found a violation of Danilo Mandić's right to liberty and security, assessing that there were not sufficiently specific and reliable reasons linking him to the commission of criminal offenses.
Bonus video:
