Centre for Civic Education (CCE) has submitted a documented request to the Agency for Prevention of Corruption (ACP) for an opinion on a suspected conflict of interest and restrictions related to the exercise of public office concerning ACP Council member Mladen Tomović.
As a reminder, back in October 2024, the CCE submitted an initiative to ACP requesting an assessment of conflict of interest among individuals appointed to the working bodies and councils, who, under Article 3 (1) of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption, qualify as public officials while also having service contracts with state-owned enterprises or legal entities. We specifically requested a review of potential conflicts among members of the Prosecutorial Council, Judicial Council, ACP Council, RTCG Council, and the State Election Commission (SEC) and for appropriate rulings to be issued. Unfortunately, ACP failed to act responsibly and instead requested CCE to provide additional information on specific conflicts of interest within these bodies.
As a member of the ACP Council, Mladen Tomović should be safeguarding the interests of ACP and, in that context, serving as a whistleblower advocate. However, he represents the state-owned company Montenegrin Transmission System (CGES) against ACP and has pursued legal action against a whistleblower whom ACP has granted protection. His involvement also included seeking the annulment of the whistleblower’s protection status through administrative proceedings, which concluded with a controversial ruling by the Administrative Court in January this year.
ACP’s failure to take professional action is concerning, but even more alarming is Tomović’s justification that his legal engagement before joining the ACP Council cannot be considered under the restrictions of the Law on Prevention of Corruption, despite the ongoing harmful consequences for ACP.
CCE’s position is supported by the assessment of Drago Kos, an expert in this field and former president of GRECO (Group of States against Corruption of the Council of Europe – GRECO). “It should never have happened that an ACP Council member acts as a legal representative of a party seeking to revoke whistleblower protection. I cannot understand or accept this,” he stated for one Montenegrin media outlet. He further emphasized that Tomović must resign from the ACP Council due to this case, regardless of his professional credentials.
Tomović has neither resigned from the ACP Council nor has ACP leadership acted within its competencies to protect the whistleblower, who reported corruption in CGES, and the integrity of its own institution. This is why CCE has initiated a process to determine accountability.
Tomović’s representation of CGES – a state-owned entity – in multiple cases against ACP and a whistleblower under ACP’s protection constitutes both a conflict of interest and unethical conduct, as well as an abuse of influence within ACP.
It is worth noting that, at the time of CCE’s initiative and today, the ACP leadership was aware of unethical actions and conflict of interest of the member of the ACP Council (it is mentioned somewhere also Vice president although that function is not recognized legislative framework!). The key question is – why ACP failed to determine the conflict of interest and halt this unethical and unlawful conduct, instead opting to “buy time” until the Administrative Court proceedings concluded to the detriment of the whistleblower and at further cost to ACP’s credibility. Such conduct does not contribute to building public trust in ACP, as it demonstrates the prioritization of particular interests over the public interest.
Moreover, CCE has learned that Tomović also represents the Agency for Personal Data Protection and Free Access to Information (AZLP), which again violates Article 16 of the Law on Prevention of Corruption.
CGO reiterates its call for ACP to establish all relevant facts in this case and issue a unified opinion that public officials serving in working bodies and councils cannot represent any state institution or publicly owned entity while holding public office. Otherwise, according to Article 16, any contracts they have signed would be deemed null and void. It is detrimental if ACP adopts inconsistent positions on identical issues or interprets legal norms in an arbitrary and unfounded manner to protect individuals in leadership positions within the ACP while applying different standards to other persons in other institutions.
Additionally, we urge the ACP Council to determine whether Council member Tomović, by violating Article 16 of the Law on Prevention of Corruption, has caused harm, which would, in accordance with legal provisions, warrant the Council initiating proceedings for his dismissal due to the aforementioned conflict of interest and restrictions.
CGO hopes that ACP leadership will finally act professionally and lawfully in this matter.
Snežana Kaluđerović, Senior Legal Advisor