Centre for Civic Education (CCE) submitted, more than two months ago, initiatives to the Managing Board and the Senate of the University of Montenegro (UoM), as well as to the Agency for Prevention of Corruption (APC), requesting an assessment of the existence of a conflict of interest, or the risk of one arising, in the case of Vedran Vujisić, due to his simultaneous performance of multiple roles within the University of Montenegro.
These initiatives pointed out that, according to publicly available and verifiable information, Vedran Vujisić simultaneously serves as a teaching associate at the Faculty of Political Sciences of the University of Montenegro, acts as a student representative on the Council of the Faculty of Political Sciences, and serves as a member of the Managing Board of the UoM representing students.
The simultaneous exercise of teaching, student representative and governance functions objectively raises the issue of a conflict of interest, particularly given that a teaching associate is in an employment relationship with the UoM and receives remuneration for that role, while at the same time representing students and participating, on their behalf, in decision-making at the highest governing level of the UoM. The concentration of different duties, responsibilities and forms of representation in a single individual casts doubt on the independence of decision-making and undermines confidence in its integrity.
In addition, the CCE points to concerns already present, both in the public and within the academic community, regarding the extension of student status through successive enrolment in different study programmes, thereby enabling the extension of mandates in university decision-making bodies. Namely, after completing his undergraduate studies, Vujisić enrolled in a master’s programme in the same field, which he did not complete, and he then attempted to enrol in an additional undergraduate programme (Political Science – International Relations), but his application was removed from the admissions procedure pursuant to Art 17, para 4, of the Rules of Study for Undergraduate Programmes at the University of Montenegro. Thereafter, according to available information, he enrolled in another master’s programme in a different field of study. This legitimately raises the question of whether student status is being maintained to keep positions, which the UoM was obliged to examine.
The CCE recalls that student representatives on the Council of the Faculty of Political Sciences hold four out of 21 votes, which in certain situations may be decisive. However, when a student mandate is subordinated to personal interest or merely to preserving a position, students may formally have a representative, but in reality, they have lost their “voice.”
In its response to the CCE’s initiative, the UoM referred to normative gaps and the absence of an explicit prohibition on the incompatibility of these functions, avoiding a substantive response. This suggests that no assessment was conducted regarding the existence of a conflict of interest or the risk of one arising.
The CCE stresses that a conflict of interest cannot be reduced to a formal distinction between public and non-public functions. The UoM states that membership on the Board of Directors constitutes a public function within the framework of the Law on Prevention of Corruption, whereas the position of teaching associate does not fall into that category. At the same time, the UoM links this engagement to student status, while also stating that a teaching associate may be a person who is not a student, namely a holder of a doctoral degree. This confirms that this is a distinct form of engagement in the teaching process and not something tied exclusively to student status. But, the fact that a particular engagement is not classified as a public function does not preclude the existence of a conflict of interest, especially where there is a personal or professional interest in relation to the institution about which decisions are being made. Likewise, it is unacceptable for responsibility for identifying a conflict of interest to be left solely to the office holder, thereby reducing the University of Montenegro to a passive observer. In addition,the UoM failed to respond to the part of the initiative concerning the maintenance of student status through multiple enrolments.
Raising these issues does not constitute discrimination against students. On the contrary, the CCE supports their active participation in decision-making and their engagement in the teaching process, while noting that exempting such cases from conflict-of-interest assessment would place students outside the rules that apply to everyone else.
The CCE also recalls that on 17 January 2026 it submitted an initiative for improving the normative framework in the area of conflict-of-interest prevention, together with specific recommendations. To date, there has been no response from the UoM, nor any information indicating that the proposal has been considered. Such an approach points to resistance to the introduction of standards that are already established practice at developed universities, and that are particularly important in small states such as Montenegro.
The CCE believes that this case underscores the need for clearer rules and warns that the absence of a precise normative framework leaves room for abuse and the erosion of academic integrity.
Jovana Radulović, Programme Assistant