Human Rights Action (HRA) has urged the Government of Montenegro and members of Parliament to withdraw a controversial proposal that seeks to amend the Law on Internal Affairs. The organization argues that the proposed legislation threatens foundational rights and lacks necessary procedural safeguards.
The proposal, adopted by the Government on December 16, 2023, suggests that police officers identified as having “security concerns” could be dismissed immediately, based on determinations made by a restricted group selected by the Minister of Internal Affairs. This provision would allow for instant termination without a formal disciplinary process, raising alarms about the potential for arbitrary dismissals fueled by unverified information.
HRA emphasizes that this approach undermines the fundamental right to fair employment practices and due process. The organization states that such measures enable a political faction to wield unchecked power over police personnel, effectively allowing for a politically motivated purge disguised as lawful “vetting.” This process is typically conducted by independent commissions of recognized integrity, rather than a politically influenced body.
The proposed amendments, according to HRA, do not align with European Union law or international conventions, and they bypass public debate. Notably, the proposal lacks confirmation from the European Commission, a significant issue considering Montenegro’s aspirations to join the EU.
HRA articulates concerns that these changes could transform the police force into a mechanism for political loyalty, eroding both professional integrity and public trust. They have highlighted several problematic aspects of the proposal that warrant scrutiny.
Among these, the establishment of a “Security Concerns Commission,” appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs, is particularly alarming. This commission would gain sweeping, unchecked authority over hiring, promotions, and dismissals within the police force, without clear and verifiable criteria. HRA warns that this concentration of power risks placing critical employment decisions in the hands of a non-independent entity, subordinated to political interests.
The proposed legislation also dramatically alters the existing security clearance process. The commission could determine the existence of security concerns even without an opinion from the National Security Agency (ANB), undermining previous legal standards that required ANB’s input. HRA argues that this change removes essential institutional checks that would typically ensure a fair assessment of security risks.
Additionally, HRA points out that police candidates or current officers would only be formally informed of any alleged security concerns without being privy to the underlying reasons or evidence. This lack of transparency severely limits their ability to contest decisions, reducing the right to legal recourse to a mere formality. Such provisions could lead to indefinite exclusions from the police force based on unclear and potentially politically motivated assessments.
The proposed law also discards the concept of disciplinary responsibility as the primary mechanism for establishing individual accountability, which has traditionally been outlined in the Law on State Officials. The government claims that this new model is more efficient because it allows for immediate termination without lengthy disciplinary processes. However, critics argue that this assertion is flawed, presuming that security concerns are unequivocally and objectively determined—a claim disputed by past experiences.
Furthermore, the proposal introduces retroactive application of its provisions, which HRA contends could violate constitutional prohibitions against retroactive legislation. The government’s invocation of “public interest” to justify such measures does not excuse the potential for harsher consequences based on obscure and unverifiable security assessments.
HRA concludes that the establishment of a permanent and comprehensive mechanism for security evaluations extends beyond current police officers to include candidates for internships, training programs, and educational opportunities within the police sector. This creates an environment of ongoing scrutiny regarding “suitability,” posing risks of political and ideological biases against professionals in law enforcement.
The organization asserts that state security cannot be built on the erosion of human rights and procedural guarantees. Rather, it should be grounded in the rule of law, emphasizing the need for a professional, depoliticized police service that operates under democratic oversight.
