The rules governing the University of Montenegro (UCG) still lack clear and stringent conflict-of-interest provisions that would exclude related individuals from decision-making and evaluation processes. As a result, “tailor-made recruitment calls” continue to be advertised, with eligibility criteria designed to fit pre-selected candidates. Institutions also fail to react when family members are favoured in the allocation of mentorships, the approval of doctoral dissertation topics, or accelerated promotions to higher academic ranks.
The appointment of Ivan Jeknić as a student demonstrator at the Faculty of Political Science (FPN) in Podgorica is the latest case raising concerns about nepotism and procedural irregularities at the University of Montenegro.
Earlier this year, the Centre for Civic Education (CCE) submitted an Initiative to Suspend the Execution of the Faculty’s Decision appointing Jeknić as a demonstrator to the Dean of the Faculty of Political Science, Prof. Boris Vukićević. CCE argued that the appointment was inconsistent with applicable internal regulations and the law.
The selection committee, composed of Prof. Milan Marković, Prof. Nataša Ružić and Assistant Professor Ena Grbović, was accused of violating regulations and arbitrarily interpreting the competition requirements in order to favour the son of their colleague Gordana Paović-Jeknić, a full professor at the Faculty of Law.
According to CCE’s analysis, Jeknić did not meet the criteria and conditions prescribed in the Internal Call for Applications for the position of student demonstrator. The organisation concluded that the entire procedure was problematic. The Internal Call itself had been published contrary to a decision of the UCG Rector. When deficiencies in the candidate’s application became apparent, additional “clarifications” and amendments were introduced during the process in an apparent attempt to retroactively justify his appointment. Although CCE formally requested that the Dean of the Faculty of Political Science urgently suspend the implementation of the disputed decision and publicly called on the Rector of the University of Montenegro to intervene, no action was taken.
Earlier this month, CCE informed the public of the outcome of the case. Jeknić’s disputed engagement during the winter semester simply expired, while neither the Faculty management nor the Rectorate annulled, amended or revoked the unlawful decision. CCE strongly criticised this outcome, arguing that a strategy of “remaining silent and waiting for the contract to expire” sends a dangerous message that rules and anti-corruption standards at the state university can be circumvented with impunity when a candidate enjoys political or family connections.
Civil society organisations and the media have been warning about nepotism at the University of Montenegro for decades. The phenomenon manifests itself through the employment of relatives of prominent professors, the creation of so-called “hereditary departments”, and the preferential treatment of candidates with family ties during academic appointments and promotions. Examples repeatedly emerge of professors’ children obtaining positions as teaching assistants or associates at the very faculties and departments where their parents teach.
The problem lies in the fact that UCG’s regulations still do not contain clear and strict conflict-of-interest provisions that would exclude related individuals from decision-making and evaluation processes. Consequently, “tailor-made recruitment calls” continue to be advertised with criteria specifically designed for predetermined candidates. Likewise, no action is taken when family members are favoured in the allocation of mentorships, the approval of doctoral dissertation topics, or accelerated advancement to higher academic ranks.
The Faculty of Law stands out as a particularly illustrative example of a practice that, according to critics, is widespread across most UCG faculties.
At the beginning of the 2025/2026 academic year, the public learned of another example of a “hereditary department” at the Faculty of Law. Prof. Velimir Rakočević submitted an official request to the Dean of the Faculty, stating that he would relinquish teaching responsibilities for several courses so that they could be transferred to his daughter, Aleksandra Rakočević, who had previously served as a teaching associate. Rakočević argued that he was overburdened with professional obligations while his daughter did not have a full teaching workload. He proposed that she take over two Master’s-level courses in their entirety. The Faculty Council approved the request and allowed Dr. Aleksandra Rakočević to assume responsibility for the courses. In doing so, the Council emphasised that she had completed her specialist, Master’s and doctoral studies in the field of criminal law. All of these degrees were obtained at the same faculty where her father serves as a professor, with a perfect grade-point average. Some faculty members and teaching associates argued that such a redistribution of courses restricts opportunities for other assistants and doctoral candidates who do not come from academic families but are equally qualified in those fields.
Within the Department of Criminal Law, this is not an isolated case. The department includes Prof. Drago Radulović, former Dean of the Faculty of Law, and his son, Prof. Darko Radulović. Official records and decisions relating to Master’s thesis defences in the field of criminal law show that father and son regularly serve together on three-member examination committees. It is not uncommon for Prof. Darko Radulović to supervise a student while Prof. Drago Radulović and Prof. Velimir Rakočević serve as members of the examination committee responsible for evaluating and defending the same thesis. In other instances, Rakočević acts as supervisor while the Radulovićs serve as committee members. Civil society organisations argue that such arrangements, where close family members occupy a majority or key positions within examination bodies, undermine perceptions of objectivity and impartiality.
Although both Prof. Radoje Korać, the current President of the Judicial Council and former President of the Constitutional Court, and his son, Assistant Professor Velibor Korać, recipient of the University of Montenegro Annual Award for Outstanding Contribution to Science, have built recognised professional and academic careers, their positions at the same faculty are frequently viewed through the lens of “hereditary departments”. For decades, Prof. Radoje Korać taught Family Law and Children’s Rights at the Faculty of Law. Assistant Professor Velibor Korać began his academic career at the same faculty as a teaching associate and today teaches within the same group of courses under the Department of Civil Law. Their close academic collaboration has also been formalised through scholarly publications. They are co-authors of the official university textbook *Family Law*, whose second revised edition was published in 2024 and is used as mandatory literature for students at the Faculty of Law.
Similar examples have been identified at the Faculty of Philosophy, the Faculty of Medicine and several technical faculties.
Because of such practices, CCE has warned that the absence of precise and effective conflict-of-interest rules at the University of Montenegro undermines the development of a transparent, merit-based and accountable academic system, while directly creating conditions for the continuation of practices such as so-called “hereditary departments”.
After comparing the legal frameworks of relevant regional and European universities, CCE concluded that the University of Montenegro stands out as one of the least normatively regulated systems, characterised by a narrow regulatory framework and minimal institutional safeguards against non-objective and potentially biased decision-making.
CCE therefore recommends that the University of Montenegro clearly define, through its regulations, the categories of related persons whose relationships may give rise to conflicts of interest and compromise impartial decision-making. These should include family, partner, professional, mentoring, friendship and antagonistic relationships. The organisation also recommends introducing mandatory disclosure of all circumstances that constitute or may constitute a conflict of interest, accompanied by a clear, formalised and binding recusal procedure. Furthermore, UCG should establish conflict-of-interest risk management plans, drawing on examples such as the practice of the University of Ljubljana, as a systemic preventive mechanism.
According to CCE, the University’s Statute and Code of Ethics contain only general and insufficiently precise provisions, lacking clear definitions, obligations and procedures. As such, they remain ineffective in practice and leave substantial room for abuse.
Predrag Nikolić
The text was originally published in weekly Monitor.