At the beginning of October of this year, the Deputy Chief Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina sent a letter to the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (HJPC), in which he chronologically explained the problems he faces in his workplace, which, according to him, arise from the actions of the Chief State Prosecutor Milanko Kajganić, he writes today detector.ba. Detektor had insight into the content of this letter, which is one of the pieces of evidence mentioned in the criminal report that Pašić submitted to the State Prosecutor’s Office on November 12.
In the application, Pašić accuses Kajganić and acting prosecutor Vedrana Mijović of making decisions in favor of then-suspect fugitives Milorad Dodik, Radovan Višković and Nenad Stevandić. The deputy chief prosecutor confirmed for Detektor that he sent the letter more than a month ago, but that the HJPC did not react.
“I did not receive any call, and I expected someone to contact me given the seriousness of the complaint,” said Pasic.
HJPC President Sanin Bogunić did not want to verbally comment on the findings from the complaint, asking for a written inquiry, to which the HJPC has not yet responded. The two public sessions of the Council held after the letter did not cover the topic of the complaint.
Proceedings against Dodik, Višković and Stevandić
In his letter dated October 7, Pašić reminded that proceedings against Milorad Dodik, Radovan Višković and Nenad Stevandić are being conducted before the Prosecutor’s Office due to the existence of grounds for suspicion that they committed a criminal offense an attack on the constitutional order. In the meantime, a decision was made to suspend the investigation in this case.
In this case, Pašić had the role of supervision and participated in the conducted evidence activities. He states that, according to his proposal, a prosecution team was formed which was supposed to improve the efficiency of the procedure and preserve the independence and impartiality of the work. However, as he points out, the function of prosecutorial teams has been turned into an instrument of collective decision-making and override, which, according to him, is today a means of controlling the chief prosecutor.
“There are numerous examples in which prosecutorial decisions in important cases have not yet been made precisely because of this imposed standard of collective decision-making, which apparently today serves exclusively in the capacity of the chief prosecutor,” Pašić stated.
Obstructions and mobbing
Pašić states that in the case against Dodik, Stevandić and Višković, there are serious difficulties and obstructions in the work, partly due to the type of criminal offense, high positions of the suspects and great public interest. Disagreements with Kajganić damaged their working relations, and since June 2025, not a single collegium has been convened.
Also, Pašić claims that he had no direct official communication with Kajganić regarding the organization of work and the functioning of the Prosecutor’s Office. He suggested shortening the prosecutor’s team from nine to four prosecutors, which was rejected, and subsequently the entire team was disbanded, and the case was entrusted to one prosecutor, originally signed for the case.
The deputy chief prosecutor emphasizes that one of the reasons for forming the team was the public’s perception regarding the family circumstances of the prosecutor, whose father has political connections. He instructed the prosecutor to inform him about all investigative activities, which, he claims, she ignored.
“I did not receive the report on the actions taken, but it was submitted to the chief prosecutor,” says Pašić.
Restrictions on functions and rights
In September 2024, Pašić was appointed head of the Special Department for Organized, Economic Crime and Corruption, and head of the Department for Organized Crime. However, as he states, certain rights and obligations of the head of the Department are limited by that decision, while in other departments, heads have already been appointed.
“Since taking office, I have been faced with constant restrictions. The decision on my appointment is not aligned with the rulebook on the internal organization of the Special Department, nor with the internal regulation of the Prosecutor’s Office,” says Pašić.
According to the letter, he suffers various forms of pressure on a daily basis, which have the character of mobbing. Pašić was also invited to testify in his capacity as deputy chief prosecutor, which he understood as an attempt to exempt him from his jurisdiction over the work and review of the decisions made.
Reactions and next steps
The deputy president of the HJPC, Sanela Gorušanović Butigan, directed the journalists to the president of the HJPC, while the other members of the Council refused to comment on the case. The Office of the Disciplinary Prosecutor has not yet answered whether a case against Kajganić has been established based on Pašić’s complaint.
Prosecutor Pašić, based on his findings, also filed a criminal complaint against the chief prosecutor and the acting prosecutor, and the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH formed the case. Disciplinary prosecutors have not yet announced whether disciplinary proceedings have been initiated.
(TYPE/Source: Detektor.ba/Author: Nermina Kuloglija-Zolj/Photo: Archive)
