HRA: Proposed amendments to the Internal Affairs Law turn the police into an instrument of political loyalty

Human Rights Action (HRA) called on the Government and MPs to urgently withdraw the Bill on Amendments to the Law on Internal Affairs from the procedure.

They appealed to the executive and legislative authorities to provide clearly prescribed, precise and verifiable criteria for determining security interference with appropriate procedural guarantees in disciplinary proceedings, such as the right to be informed of the accusation and the right to respond to it, i.e. the right to defense.

"The draft law on amendments to the Law on Internal Affairs - which the Government adopted on 16. 12. 2025 - proposes that in the event of 'security obstacles' on the part of a police officer, determined by a narrow circle of people selected by the Minister of Internal Affairs, the police officer is immediately dismissed, without conducting disciplinary proceedings. The dismissal automatically applies to all officers against whom disciplinary proceedings on this basis are already underway. In this way, the human right to work and the fairness of the procedure are grossly violated, and a narrow political circle is allowed to distribute dismissals in an uncontrolled and arbitrarily manner based on unverified information. This also allows the party purge of the police to be disguised as a legal 'vetting', which otherwise implies an extraordinary procedure, carried out by special commissions of experts of recognized integrity, and which must in no case be exposed to the risk of political arbitrariness that the Draft Law allows," the statement reads.

They said that the proposal was not in line with EU law and international conventions, that it had not undergone a public debate, "nor did its explanation state that it had received the consent of the European Commission, which is particularly problematic in the context of Montenegro's accession to the EU."

They say that such solutions clearly turn the police into an instrument of political loyalty, threatening the professionalism and depoliticization of that institution and, therefore, the trust of citizens.

They also listed "particularly controversial points" in the Bill.

"The Security Disturbance Commission, established by the Minister of Internal Affairs (Article 6 of the Proposal), is given very broad and uncontrolled authority to decide on the admission, education and promotion in the Police Directorate, as well as the termination of employment of police officers by force of law (Article 24), and without clearly defined and verifiable criteria. This leaves the decision-making on the existential right to work to a body that is not independent, but directly subordinate to the minister as an exponent of a political party," writes HRA.

They also said that the Bill radically changes the current system of security checks, so that the aforementioned Commission can determine the existence of security obstacles even without the opinion of the National Security Agency (ANB), if the ANB does not submit an opinion within the stipulated period (Articles 6 and 20).

"This way, the previous legal solution is abandoned, according to which the absence of an opinion from the ANB meant the assumption that security concerns did not exist. This also removes the minimal institutional corrective in the decision-making process on 'security concerns' that would come from the ANB, as the competent authority for security issues."

It is particularly problematic, HRA points out, that a candidate for a police job or a police officer is only formally informed of the alleged existence of security concerns, without the right to be informed of the reasons, facts or evidence on the basis of which such an assessment was made.

"This also prevents effective judicial or administrative control of the decision, because the right to a legal remedy is reduced to a mere formality. In practice, such a solution enables the permanent exclusion of individuals from the Police Directorate based on secret, unverifiable and potentially politically motivated assessments."

The draft law, adds HRA, abandons the concept of disciplinary liability as the basic mechanism for determining individual guilt and professional responsibility (Art. 22), which is "without exception prescribed in the Law on Civil Servants, under the pretext of efficiency."

"The proponent claims that the new model is more efficient because the termination of employment by force of law comes immediately (Art. 24), without lengthy disciplinary proceedings, and that the 'outcome is the same' as in the current system. This claim is problematic, because it is based on the assumption that security concerns have been unambiguously and objectively established, which current practice denies. A 'trial by a judge' under the control of a minister cannot replace a fair procedure, in which there is a right to a defense, which in a state governed by the rule of law, not a party dictatorship, must be available to anyone whose right to work and personal and professional reputation are threatened."

As they point out, retroactive application of regulations is also being introduced (Article 26).

"The Government's invocation of 'public interest', in order to circumvent the constitutional prohibition of retroactive effect of regulations (Art. 147 of the Constitution), cannot justify the retroactive application of stricter consequences that automatically lead to termination of employment, especially when they are based on secret and unverifiable assessments of security concerns, without the right to a reasoned decision and an effective legal remedy. Such a deterioration in the legal position of employees further undermines legal certainty and fair procedure."

The Institute of Security Disturbances, HRA says, is being established as a permanent and comprehensive selection mechanism, which applies not only to active police officers, but also to candidates for the admission of trainees, users of professional training in the police, candidates for basic and higher police education, "which allows for constant verification of the 'suitability' of personnel both upon entering the system and throughout their career". This creates an institutional framework for political and ideological filtration of personnel, incompatible with the principles of a professional, depoliticized and democratically controlled police service, the NGO says.

The security of the state cannot be built on lowering the achieved level of human rights in the form of abolishing procedural guarantees, nor on the political selection of personnel, but on the basis of the rule of law, which implies the building of professional institutions, the statement says.