Once again, we urge Members of Parliament to halt further decision-making on the Draft Law on the Agency for National Security (NSA), to open space for a broad and inclusive public debate, and to take into account the views of relevant experts, organizations, and institutions, as without democratic oversight of the security services, there can be no legal certainty or European future for Montenegro!
Non-governmental organizations regret that, after decades of waiting for the reform of the NSA, the current government has failed to propose a law that would establish a modern, professional, and democratically accountable security service.
If this draft law is adopted today, Montenegro will miss a critical opportunity to create a service that operates in the interest of citizens, not political elites – and in doing so, further undermine democratization, the rule of law, and European integration.
The Draft Law on the NSA, which is being voted on today, was developed in secrecy, without public consultation, without a human rights impact assessment, and without alignment with international treaties and the EU acquis, despite Montenegro being in a decisive phase of EU accession. By adopting this law, the government effectively rejected the European Commission’s offer to assist in improving the draft, without any explanation, a move unworthy of a government committed to democratic reforms. This reflects a government that seeks only to capture the levers of power, viewing the secret police as one of the most important among them.
The real purpose of the rushed adoption of this draft is to remove, before the legal retirement deadline, those employed under the previous government, replacing them, without public competition or competence assessment, with politically loyal individuals, and to exempt the NSA from public procurement rules. Additionally, it attempts to lower even the minimal existing safeguards for protecting citizens’ privacy from abuse by the secret service.
If such a law is passed, public trust in the NSA, a service long plagued by abuse and lack of oversight, and whose former director is currently on trial for unauthorized surveillance of dozens of public figures, will be virtually impossible to restore under this or any future government without a serious, comprehensive reform. Such restoration of trust can only come with a new political leadership whose democratic capacity aligns with European values and commitments.
This law grants extremely broad powers to an agency that has never undergone substantive reform, while the public remains uninformed about who was held accountable for past abuses and how. The clear intent is to reduce the scope for civic oversight and transform the agency into a dangerous tool or weapon in the hands of politicians.
Thanks to the urgent and evidence-based reaction of NGOs, the government was alerted to the fact that the Draft Law degrades existing privacy protections instead of enhancing them, contrary to the recommendations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
Following the parliamentary Committee on Security and Defence session, the Government proposed amendments that essentially preserve the status quo. Judicial oversight was maintained for surveillance of ICT systems of state and local authorities and legal entities with public powers (such as pension or health funds), in addition to judicial oversight already included in the draft for two new powers: international communication monitoring and searches of premises, vehicles, and objects.
The existing guarantees of the right to privacy have not been improved, for example, judicial oversight is still not envisaged for determining the location of users in electronic communications, even though the Constitutional Court has ruled that this falls under the protection of the right to privacy. Moreover, the recommendation of the Human Rights Committee to introduce judicial control over access to databases of legal entities, such as banks and NGOs, was not accepted.
Arguments from the law’s proponents – that judicial oversight would obstruct the NSA’s operational work and burden the courts – do not justify the lack of safeguards for human rights. Independent oversight and judicial protection are core features of a professional, democratic security service.
While complete removal of public competition in hiring was prevented, the law still does not ensure transparent and merit-based recruitment.
Under the adopted law, NSA officers, who deal with the vague concept of “national security” and are not required to be lawyers, retain broader powers than prosecutors and police who investigate clearly defined crimes, which is disproportionate and contrary to international privacy standards.
The law also does not require destruction of all collected data found to be unnecessary or unlawfully obtained, leaving room for prolonged and unjustified retention of sensitive personal information without legal base.
Particularly problematic is the exemption of NSA from the public procurement system, as well as the removal of the obligation for regular reporting to other state institutions. This significantly reduces institutional oversight and increases the risk of abuse.
The lack of public debate also prevented necessary interventions to better define NSA’s scope of work, which would promote good governance and a rule of law culture.
The vague notion of “national security” must not be used as justification to diminish human rights protections or evade the principles of accountable public administration. On the contrary, security in a democratic society means rule of law, protection of fundamental rights, and effective democratic oversight of security services. Security is not an excuse for repression; it is a duty to safeguard freedom.
- Human Rights Action (HRA)
- Network for Affirmation of the NGO Sector (MANS)
- Centre for Civic Education (CCE)
- Women’s Rights Center (WRC)
- Association Spektra
- Center for Civil Liberties (CEGAS)
- Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (CEDEM)
- Centre for Democratic Transition (CDT)
- Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG)
- Centre for Monitoring and Research (CeMI)
- Centre for Development of NGOs (CRNVO)
- Centre for Women’s and Peace Education ANIMA
- Queer Montenegro – Montenegrin LGBTIQ Association
- GREEN Home
- Juventas
- Prima
- Safe Women’s House
- SOS Podgorica
- Association of Youth with Disabilities of Montenegro (UMHCG)
- Association for Responsible and Sustainable Development – UZOR
- Association of Lawyers of Montenegro