HRA: Another attempt at party control of the police

Human Rights Action (HRA) protests the repeated adoption of the Bill on Amendments to the Law on Internal Affairs, as well as the Bill on the National Security Agency, with amendments.

As announced by the HRA, the controversial laws that have been proposed "only deepen the problem of human rights violations. We express concern that the full opinion of the European Commission has not been obtained."

"MPs received the amendments to the controversial proposals yesterday and are expected to discuss them today, at the end of the extraordinary parliamentary session, without a public debate and the opportunity to consider all the harmful consequences of the amendments to these laws. This rush once again exposes the interest in one-party control of the security sector at all costs. The proposed amendments to the Bill on Amendments to the Law on Internal Affairs introduce new, broadly defined 'security impediments', which include formulations such as 'establishes unauthorized contacts with persons of operational interest' or 'maintains ties' with persons who are 'reasonably suspected' of belonging to certain groups (Amendment VII)," it states.

HRA points out that these are operational, not legally precise, categories that are not subject to judicial review and may be based on unverified assessments and indications.

"Amendment V provides that the commission, without conducting disciplinary proceedings, may revoke an officer's police rank based on such assessments, while Amendment X provides for termination of employment by force of law for additional categories, namely: if a medical examination determines the presence of psychoactive substances; by issuing an order to conduct an investigation or by initiating criminal proceedings for criminal offenses with elements of organized crime and corruption or for criminal offenses for which a penalty of more than five years in prison is prescribed; as well as if the officer provided data and information, or provided access to data and information obtained in the course of or in connection with the performance of police duties, to unauthorized persons."

They add that the model that has been criticized before is being proposed again - a commission, appointed by the minister, can determine the existence of a "security obstacle" without an adversarial procedure, without clearly prescribed procedural rules, without an obligation to inform the police officer of the reasons and evidence on which it bases its decision, and without a real opportunity for him to dispute the allegations and present a defense. The absence of an obligation to explain and provide the factual and evidentiary basis for the decision makes the right to appeal and judicial protection essentially meaningless.

"Of particular concern is the new solution according to which the mere issuance of an order to conduct an investigation for certain criminal offenses (which in itself represents the moment of initiating criminal proceedings) automatically leads to the termination of employment. The investigation is initiated based on grounds of suspicion, not established guilt, and a significant number of proceedings are concluded without a conviction. Introducing a permanent consequence of termination of employment, before a final judgment, represents de facto punishment without a court decision and directly undermines the presumption of innocence, instead of, as has been the case until now, suspending the employee from duty until the proceedings are concluded," the HRA announced.

With regard to the Law on the National Security Agency, they add, the amendments do not eliminate any of the key problems that the public had previously pointed out.

"There is no judicial control over surveillance measures, including tracking the location of citizens and accessing databases of legal entities, including banks and NGOs, although the Constitutional Court of Montenegro pointed out in 2014 that such measures infringe on the right to privacy, and international mechanisms warned that existing solutions do not provide sufficient guarantees. The ANB retains broader powers than the police and prosecutor's office, while being excluded from the public procurement system and regular reporting, which further reduces transparency and democratic control."

The HRA reminds that the same shortcomings were pointed out by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, Ana Brian Nougreres, who in September 2025 sent a letter to the Government expressing serious concern about the overly broad powers of the ANB and the lack of adequate judicial and independent oversight of its work.

"She warned that the disputed provisions do not provide sufficient guarantees for the protection of the right to privacy and requested clarifications on their compliance with international standards. The new amendments, however, did not further regulate any of the issues raised by the rapporteur, thus essentially ignoring her recommendations."

HRA believes that protecting the integrity of the police and state security is a legitimate goal, but it cannot be achieved through norms that allow for the removal of titles and termination of employment without due process, without the right to defense and without respecting the presumption of innocence, nor by granting broad and uncontrolled powers without judicial and public control.

"The adoption of such solutions would represent a serious step backwards in terms of the rule of law and legal certainty. The retroactive effect of the law is a particular problem. It can be reasonably concluded that the proponents of this law only care about ensuring the formal entry into force of the disputed laws in order to hand out dismissals to political dissenters without any proceedings, even if such solutions are subsequently challenged before the Constitutional Court or the European Court of Human Rights," the HRA announced.