The Commission for Deciding on Conflicts of Interest in BiH did not sanction any official in its first year of existence, although dozens of complaints against some of the key BiH officials are waiting to be resolved.
The Commission, established by the new Law on Conflict of Interest, began its work in November 2024 and to date has not imposed any sanctions due to already established political obstructions and non-adoption of bylaws. While Transparency International’s complaints against Milorad Dodik, Nermin Nikšić, Sevlid Hurtić, and numerous other officials are waiting to be resolved, the Commission, contrary to the Law, is trying to prohibit the public from attending sessions.
The authorities presented the adoption of the Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest at the level of BiH institutions in March 2024 as a great success in the EU integration process, which was followed by support for opening membership negotiations. On the other hand, TI BiH and other civil society organizations loudly warned about the non-transparent process of adopting this law, different versions that appeared before the Council of Ministers, as well as deficiencies in the law itself. Despite certain improvements, TI BiH believed that the proposed model of work of the Commission for Deciding on Conflicts of Interest, as a hybrid body whose members have a fluid status, could lead to obstructions in its work and inefficiency in conducting procedures and decision-making. Other objections related to the method of verifying asset declarations and deciding on sanctions related to dismissal from duty.
Even after the controversial appointments of Commission members, further obstructions followed in the form of non-adoption of bylaws necessary for its further work. The appointment process itself was further compromised by the fact that some Commission members themselves were in a potential conflict of interest. Thus, Dejan Ružić was appointed as a member and the first chairman of the Commission, who was simultaneously a candidate in the competition and the secretary of the commission conducting the competition procedure, which called into question the impartiality of the entire process. Another appointed member and current chairman, Dženan Šečerbajtarević, is employed as a police officer in the State Investigation and Protection Agency, although the Law on Police Officers of BiH explicitly prohibits performing any public function along with that duty. TI BIH reported these cases to the competent authorities, but most of them declared themselves incompetent. Such a start to the Commission’s mandate only further deepened doubts about its impartiality and credibility, while in the meantime, by not enforcing the law, public officials are allowed and directly supported in holding incompatible positions, impermissible employment of close relatives in the public sector, and illegal rigging of tenders for close companies.
The delay in applying the Law obviously suits everyone: the Commission, which through sluggish action contributed to the violation of the deadline for drafting regulations without which it cannot work; the Ministry of Justice of BiH, which for months did not provide the Commission with a seal, often used as an excuse for the lack of results in work; APIK, which does not carry out its legal obligations and does not provide the Commission with technical support for work; and not even the parliamentarians who should actively supervise, but instead choose silent support for non-implementation. All this leads to complete inefficiency in the Commission’s work, which even after a year has not established basic conditions for the application of the law.
The fact that the first of the Commission’s five-year mandate was wasted without sanctions for conflicts of interest sends a dangerous signal in which direction the interpretation of the law and the establishment of rules and practices could go. Particularly concerning is the ignoring of recommendations from an international expert who, at the Commission’s request, prepared an analysis of the draft regulations, which could have improved the legal framework. In the meantime, the Commission has been issuing non-binding opinions at the request of public officials, without additional checks, and arbitrarily interpreting state and laws regulating conflicts of interest at lower levels of government. Thus, the Commission discussed a gifted pistol to former BiH Security Minister Nenad Nešić, while complaints of conflicts of interest of high-ranking public officials are waiting for proceedings to be initiated.
An additional problem is the Commission’s effort to make its work even less transparent. At the last session in October, members discussed the possibility of closing sessions to the public, referring to the Rules of Procedure that are not available to the public. This directly violates the provision of the Law which clearly stipulates that proceedings before the Commission are public, except for voting and situations when otherwise determined by law. At a time when the Commission does not publish agendas, session materials, or subsequent decisions and opinions, attendance at sessions is the only remaining form of public oversight of its work. The attempt to abolish even this minimum of transparency further undermines public trust and opens space for arbitrariness in decision-making. Instead of building integrity and trust, the Commission continues the institutional practice of closedness, turning this “reform success” into yet another symbol of captured institutions.
