In his announcements, MP Mladen Bojanic informed the public on the Ramada case, within which the Montenegro’s Railway Directorate allegedly paid for Ivan Brajovic’s Social Democrats’ (SD) meeting organised in the hotel. The case was reported to Bojanic by Patricia Pobric.
SD stated that it had been blackmailed by Bojanic with alleged bills from the Ramada hotel, requiring the party not to support appointment of the president of Positive Montenegro (PCG) Darko Pajovic as the Speaker of Parliament.
The Prosecutor’s Office and the Anti-Corruption Agency took over the case and SD charged Bojanic with blackmail. According to information obtained in these institutions, procedures in the Ramada case are ongoing. Meanwhile, Patricia Pobric appeared with Mladen Bojanic at a press conference on the occasion of establishing a new political movement in Montenegro. In certain way, it confirmed SD’s earlier claims that the case was all about politics.
SD claims that a person who rushes to provide certain information to a politician is not a whistleblower. The party also adds that a whistle blower cannot be the one who uses lies and delivers information out of his/her own interests and who establishes a political group together with exactly that failed politician.
“Regarding the Ms Pobric’s case, it is clear that the masks have finally been removed and that the truth related to the last month’s media campaign led by MP Bojanic has been revealed. With his like-minded associates, anti-NATO campaigners and ‘independent’ and ‘politically impartial’ civil activists, including Pobric, he decided to establish a political party that will run in the elections. Therefore, he clumsily tried to promote himself and other anonymous persons who would be on his party’s candidates list, by blackmailing and falsely accusing the Social Democrats”, the party stated.
PCG has also been interested in the case, since SD claimed it had been blackmailed related to appointment of Darko Pajovic. The party required the Anti-Corruption Agency to allow it to see Patricia Pobric’s request for whistleblower protection.
“The question is who whistleblowers, blackmailers and victims in this case are. It can be determined only by the competent prosecutor and judicial bodies”, said Zagorka Pavicevic, the head of PCG’s legal team, adding that the request for whistleblower protection should be considered very carefully and see whether the case included a political blackmail.
PCG called in mind that Pobric had not distanced herself from Bojanic’s act.
“Anti-Corruption Law defines whistleblowers as natural or legal person submitting a report on jeopardising public interest, indicating the existence of corruption. In this case, there was no official report. Instead, the evidence ended up in the hands of an MP who possibly abused it to blackmail other MP, which is contrary to the Constitution”, Pavicevic said.
