English

Andrija Mandic engaged people for counter-surveillance?

Mandić i Knežević

Extra-procedural council of the High Court is to examine charges in the attempted terrorism case on 5 May. Fourteen defendants have been charged with involvement in planning terrorist attacks on the last year’s election day. The High Court stated that the hearing was scheduled to access the legality and justification of the indictment.

The Special State Prosecutor’s Office (SDT) has brought indictment against two Russian nationals Eduard Shishmakov and Vladimir Popov; Serbian nationals Milos Jovanovic, Nemanja Ristic, Predrag Bogicevic, Bratislav Dikic, Kristina Hristic, Branko Milic, Milan Dusic, Dragan Maksic, Srboljub Djordjevic; three Montenegrin nationals, Democratic Front (DF) leaders, Andrija Mandic and Milan Knezevic, and DF driver Mihailo Cadjenovic. The case against Ananije Nino Nikic (DF’s translator/interpreter) is separated.

The indictment against the defendants has been written on 129 pages and the document contains a number of details unknown to the public so far, Pobjeda newspaper writes. SDT has listed eleven witnesses to be heard, attached already reached final verdicts and announced presentation of as many as 118 pieces of material evidence and listening to 33 phone calls recorded under secret surveillance measures.

Organizers and accomplices

As stated in the investigation order, the indictment confirms that Russian citizens Eduard Shishmakov and Vladimir Popov were organisers of the criminal group. They have been reasonably suspected of being agents of the Russian GRU counterintelligence administration.

SDT described in details the role and all the defendants, starting from the former commander of the Serbian gendarmerie Bratislava Dikic, his girlfriend Kristina Hristic, to the Serbian citizens whose extraction was rejected – Nemanja Ristic and Predrag Bogicevic…

The indictment contains detailed description of the role of DF leaders in the “criminal organization”.

Mandic’s role

According to the order, the president of the New Serb Democracy (NOVA) and one of the DF leaders Andrija Mandic had a substantial role in preparing terrorist attacks on 16 October. Among other things, it is alleged that Mandic had acted upon the instructions of the criminal group organisers. His task was to “recruit members of the criminal organisation, convey the group organisers and members’ instructions and orders”. The DF leader is suspected of being in charge of providing official vehicles for the transport of members of the criminal group, organising protests in front of the Parliament in order for the protesters to forcibly enter the building.

“With this aim, at the final election rally of the Democratic Front held on 14 October 2016 in Podgorica, he and the defendant Milan Knezevic called on citizens to gather after the closing of polling stations on 16 October 2016, not to do anything independently and to wait for further detailed instructions of the DF presidency,” the order says.

This section has been described in the investigation order. However, the indictment goes a step further. According to the SDT findings, including the pieces of evidence obtained through secret surveillance measures, Mandic was also responsible for “engaging other people for the purpose of counter-surveillance, procuring equipment for detecting surveillance devices, procuring tracking signal jammers, as well as making a plan for evacuation of the criminal group members on the election day and the next day…”

The accused Mandic has been questioned before SDT twice.

In the first version, he did not comment on the investigation order allegations, but claimed that “a politically motivated process had been launched against him” and that “he was an MP, so it was impossible to conduct criminal proceedings against him until his immunity was lifted in a legal way”.

In his defence amendment, the DF leader said that the allegations against him had nothing to do either with him or any DF member, and that he saw them as a “grave insult”. He also said that he would answer all the questions “only before the court and the court of the public”, adding that while presenting his defence, he would take the advantage to “publically reveal positions exposing a dangerous frame-up”.

Send this to a friend