(Podgorica, 8 April 2013) – According to information obtained by MANS, there is a reasonable suspicion that the MUP of Montenegro manipulated the oversight of some 7,000 complaints regarding irregularities in the Electoral Lists that were submitted by both presidential candidates on the eve of yesterday’s elections.
That is, information form the report that MUP submitted to Presidential candidate Miodrag Lekic – and which MANS had access to – relate to the alleged oversight functions carried out by the Secretariat for Local Administration of the Capital City Podgorica. The report notes that inspectors never visited the institution in question, indicating that the entirety of the ‘inspectors’ oversight’ was falsified in order to try to respond to public pressure demanding that the Law be correctly implemented.
That is, Article 34 of the Law on the Inspectors’ Oversight, stipulates that every communication regarding a completed oversight investigation must be signed by the subject of the oversight. In this case that would have been a representative of the Secretariat for Local Administration of the Capital City Podgorica (where the oversight investigation was apparently carried out). In so far as the subject does not wish to sign, this must be indicated in the report.
However, not a single report that MANS was able to review until now contains the names of the representative of the Secretariat who attended the oversight, nor their signature. There is also no information whether or not someone in the Secretariat refused to sign the report. For this reason, there exists sufficient grounds to suspect that representatives of the MUP didn’t even go into the field in order to directly carry out their investigation in the premises of the Secretariat (in order to verify alleged violations of the Electoral List).
Furthermore, the reports abound in other illegalities, which only reinforces our suspicion that the required investigation wasn’t even carried out. For instance, none of the reports that we saw until now contains information concerning the established factual situation. Instead, we find for every individual the same explanation, stating that they were registered in accordance with the same administrative act (UP I 06209/13113), while in some cases we find no information regarding when the individual being reviewed was registered in the Electoral List.
Particularly interesting is the fact that all individuals were registered on the basis of the aforementioned administrative act, although the date given for the adoption of this single act differs on a case-by-case basis (which is legally impossible). It was precisely such an illegal state of affairs that was used by MUP as a justification for why individuals electors were registered in the Electoral Lists.
The MUP has failed to name the famous administrative act whose numbers it cites, nor what type of document we are dealing with exactly. Furthermore, it failed to explain how it is possible that on the basis of this single administrative act of the same administrative number, which should be aimed at a single individual, has created a situation in which many people are registered in the same way.
For instance, MUP inspectors find it totally logical that Duško Kulundžić (JMBG 0808950860062) was registered in Podgorica (according to UP I 06209/13113 adopted on 11 February 2013), while Stanka Jovanović (JMBG 1703949215053), registered on the basis of this same document (though in her case on 5 March 2013), or Bosiljka Vukcevic (JMBG 2804936179354), on whose case MUP inspectors decided that the same act was adopted in October 2012. On the other hand, in the case of Draga Sjekloce (JMBG 2103947213025) and many others, there is absolutely no information about when exactly this famous administrative act was adopted.
The MUP reports assert further illogical findings, including citizens registered on the bass of the same administrative act before this legislation was even (allegedly) adopted. Danka Dekic(JMBG 1810949215186) was introduced in the Electoral List on 5 March 2013, on the basis of an act adopted a day later (6 March 2013), which is impossible. The same case applies to Nada Gavrilovic (JMBG 1911953155016), Milenko Drakic (JMBG 1905942210015), and many others.
From all of the above, it is clear that the MUP has not only violated the Law on Electoral Lists – including, failing to carry out full oversight inspections on the basis of complaints filed by both presidential candidates within the legally mandated 24 hour deadline – but they also violated the law in cases where some type of investigation was allegedly undertaken, leading to flagrant manipulations of information in order to cover up the numerous irregularities in the Electoral List. MANS will continue to analyze all the reports submitted by the MUP to the presidential candidates, and we will use all legal mechanisms at our disposal in order to prevent the MUP from hiding any manipulations of the Electoral Lists (whose ultimate aim is to illegally influence the eventual results of the Presidential elections).
Attached is an overview of the problematic oversight reports that the MUP submitted to the candidates.
