The Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT) is waiting to receive evidence from the United States of America (USA) in a case formed almost a year ago regarding a lobbying agreement worth 350 thousand euros that the former government, headed by Dritan Abazovic, concluded with the company “Bipartisan Solution Inc.” from Washington.
This was told to "Vijesti" yesterday by the special prosecutor and spokesperson for the SDT, Vukas Radonjic.
"In April last year, the Government of Montenegro submitted to the SDT documentation on a lobbying agreement worth 350.000 euros, which the previous Government concluded with the US company 'Bipartizan Solution Inc.', based on which a criminal case was formed. During the investigation so far, appropriate evidence, information and data have been collected from the Government and the Protector of Property and Legal Interests, and evidence is currently being collected in the procedure of international legal assistance in criminal matters from the competent US authority," said Radonjić.
Vlada Milojko Spajić At its session held on April 18 last year, the government decided to forward to the SDT documentation on the agreement signed by the executive branch led by Abazović. Earlier that month, the government announced that it had submitted to the National Anti-Corruption Council documentation on the agreement, which it claimed proved that Abazović's cabinet had illegally spent 350 euros on lobbying.
As they said at the time, an act that would constitute the basis for concluding a contract with legal effect in relation to the Government was allegedly missing, and the Public Procurement Law was allegedly not complied with.
Abazović, on the other hand, claimed that the lobbying contract exists, but that the Government "does not want to see it."
The leader and MP of the Civic Movement (GP) URA stated at the time that Montenegro was the only country without hired lobbyists, that the contract of 350.000 was "the smallest possible", and that, when compared to the countries in the region, it was "ten times less".
"Every government should have these kinds of contracts and choose the companies that it believes will work best in our interests in Washington. During that period when we sided with the Alliance in the war in Ukraine, we had to have greater visibility in Washington. But this is nonsense, because everything was done according to regulations. I am satisfied with what was done with that money, because we are a country that has shown agility in modest conditions, and our partners were able to appreciate that," said Abazović.
Spajić's office announced in April last year that the contract with the company "Bipartizan Solution Inc.", an American-Israeli political analyst Michelle Baraka, signed in December 2022, for one year. The Abazović government terminated that contract at the end of May 2023, using a clause that provided that the document could be annulled during that period.
"Upon reviewing the documentation, it is noted that the engagement letter in question was concluded between 'Bipartizan Solution Inc.' from Washington and Dritan Abazović, on December 13, 2022, on behalf of the Government of Montenegro, and for the conclusion of the legal transaction, its consent was not previously given, more precisely - where an act that would constitute the basis for concluding a contract with legal effect in relation to the Government is missing," the statement stated.
The Prime Minister's Office then claimed that the above-mentioned conclusion was that there had been "an incorrect application of binding legal regulations when entering into the contract by the 43rd Government". They stated that, pursuant to Article 29 of the Lobbying Act (a new regulation was passed in June as part of the so-called IBAR Act), the US company is obliged to inform the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (ASK) within eight days of concluding the lobbying contract.
"Considering that this is lobbying for the Government, that is, that the lobbying contract was signed by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government, the validity of the lobbying contract concluded by the Government is called into question because, pursuant to Article 11 of the Constitution, it exercises executive power, while state administration affairs, pursuant to Article 111 of the Constitution, are performed by ministries and other administrative bodies," it says in the documentation submitted by the Government to the National Anti-Corruption Council.
It is also stated that, after signing the lobbying contract, the Government, at its session on January 26, 2023, adopted a conclusion adopting the Information on the Agreement on the Use of Lobbying Services for the Needs of the Government by the Company "Bipartizan Solution Inc.".
Every government should have these kinds of contracts and choose the companies that it believes will work best in our interests in Washington. At that time when we sided with the Alliance in the war in Ukraine, we had to have greater visibility in Washington. But this is nonsense, because everything was done according to the regulations. I am satisfied with what was done with that money, because we are a country that showed agility in modest conditions, and our partners were able to appreciate that,” Abazović said last year
"The Government's conclusion clearly states that this is a 'service', which required the implementation of the procedure in accordance with the Public Procurement Law, where Article 1 stipulates that: 'this law regulates the rules of public procurement procedures for the purpose of concluding a contract or framework agreement on the public procurement of goods, works or services, and the protection of rights in public procurement procedures'," the document states.
It is noted that the Public Procurement Law makes exceptions for the procurement of services and singles out simple procurements, but that the amount of 350.000 euros "could not be implemented through simple procurements."
"Article 8 of the Public Procurement Law stipulates that 'the contracting authority is obliged to ensure competition between economic entities in the public procurement procedure, in accordance with the law, and that the contracting authority may not limit or prevent competition between economic entities, and in particular may not prevent the participation of an economic entity in the public procurement procedure by unjustified application of the negotiated procedure or by applying discriminatory conditions and criteria or measures that favor certain economic entities'", it was stated.
Bonus video:
