Bajramspahić: ANB is increasingly closed to citizens, there is no real control over its work

The National Security Agency (ANB) is increasingly closed to citizens, although it was modernized during Montenegro's accession to NATO, said Dina Bajramspahić from the Alternative Institute (IA).

At a panel discussion on the depoliticization of the intelligence sector, which was organized by that NGO, she pointed out that ANB continues to hide reports from the public.

"During the process of joining NATO, the Agency was modernized, but not in a way that includes issues of transparency and responsibility. What was done is not too significant for citizens," she said.

The panel assessed that the depoliticization of the intelligence sector is impossible without the insistence of the public, the civil sector and the media.

Bajramspahić warned that there is no real control over the work of the ANB in ​​Montenegro.

"There is no supervision or it is very superficial when it comes to the parliamentary committee that only considers the annual report. Since 2010, the deputies have not shown interest in going to the ANB and asking what is being done there... For decades, we have not had a public reaction from the intelligence sector. The intelligence community has not the subject of negotiations with the EC, but it was in Macedonia through Pribe's report, which called for reform of the sector. The intelligence sector should not be underestimated, because it is a powerful apparatus, but when we overestimate it, it leads to self-censorship of rights in the country," she said.

Recalling the reform of the intelligence sector in North Macedonia after the wiretapping scandal, Magdalena Lembovska from the Center for European Strategies (EUROTHINK) said that before that period there was a clear centralization.

She reminded that the service reform was carried out within the so-called Pribe's report, when the European Commission (EC) also joined the control.

"The scandal involving the wiretapping of politicians in power started the process, although wiretapping was not unknown to us, when they eavesdropped on journalists and opposition politicians. That affair caused a major crisis that ended with the dismissal of the Government," said Lembovska and pointed out that during that period there were shift and in service.

"After the security check, half of the officers were dismissed, but they were transferred to the Ministry of Internal Affairs," she said.

Warning that the intelligence sector is increasingly ensnaring the state, Predrag Petrović from the Belgrade Center for Security Policy warned that the centralization of power is getting stronger as the services control institutions and social flows.

He reminded that people who are connected to the BIA or loyal to the ruling party have been appointed to leading positions in Serbia.

"The former head of the BIA, Aleksandar Đorđević, is a friend of Aleksandar Vučić, and the current head, Bratislav Gašić, is also the vice president of the SNS. The prosecution for organized crime is led by Mladen Nenadić, who is a close friend of Đorđević. The tax administration is led by a former BIA staff member. This is how you can establish control over the entire system." , he said.

Independent MP Aleksandar Damjanović reminded that there were changes in the ANB because of the "Listing" affair and wiretapping of foreign diplomats, but that there is no control over the Agency despite the passing of laws dealing with it.

"There is no supervision even though it exists only on paper. We have family ties of people in the Agency and the parliament. We want our services to be strong and serious, but to control them in the right way," said Damjanović, while Boris Marić from the Center for Civil Liberties (CGS) said that there is no social consensus regarding the national interest.

Stevo Muk from IA said that ANB is outside the system and reminded that the Minister of Interior does not control it.

He pointed out that even the Government does not deal with the Agency's decisions.

2 In the parliament, members of the Security Committee have access to reports once a year and that's all. We don't know the quality of those reports," he said.