The complaint by TI BiH against Željka Cvijanović and Savo Minić was not even considered at the session of the Central Election Commission of BiH. The CEC assessed messages about votes, pension increase announcements, and the message that “the premier has the cash” largely as “simple statements and jokes,” not as political messages.
The Central Election Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CEC) has rejected initiating proceedings on the complaint by Transparency International in BiH against BiH Presidency member Željka Cvijanović and Republika Srpska Prime Minister Savo Minić for possible premature election campaigning and promising material benefits to voters.
The complaint was not considered at a CEC session; instead, TI BiH was sent a letter stating that the disputed statements do not constitute a violation of the BiH Election Law. The CEC thus decided, without public discussion and voting by Commission members, that it would not initiate proceedings ex officio.
TI BiH filed the complaint regarding Cvijanović and Minić’s addresses at the traditional gathering of pensioners from Teslić and Kotor Varoš held on July 5, 2026. In a video recording published on YouTube several days later, Minić stated:
“And I didn’t come here politically at all. Whoever seeks votes must work. And when they do the work, when they accomplish what we’ve heard President Cvijanović has done, then it comes by itself.”
Mentioning votes, however, was not sufficient for the CEC to consider Minić’s address political. Cvijanović, speaking about the authorities’ attitude toward pensioners, stated that they “made major laws” to ensure a stable environment, and then announced:
“There will be pensions, pensions will be regular, there will be increases, both regular and extraordinary adjustments. Gratitude, of course, to the pensioners’ leadership as well. We have had good cooperation for so many years because we understood that we must stick together.”
Cvijanović also told those gathered that “the premier has the cash,” that “it’s best there,” and added:
“It’s best to be on good terms with him, I’m telling you! Thank you once again, you have done us a great honor. We will reciprocate just as we have moved together through all those times until now, and so it will be in the future period.”
Although these statements contain elements of premature campaigning and promises of monetary or other material benefits, the CEC concluded that the statements do not contain political messages seeking support for a political party or candidate, because no party name, specific candidate, or political program was mentioned. The Commission also stated that Cvijanović and Minić are presented in the video recording exclusively as holders of public office, not as SNSD members.
The Commission assessed that the disputed statements are “largely simple statements and jokes exchanged with attendees of the gathering.” The explanation cites as a relevant circumstance the fact that the CEC could not establish that the person who recorded and edited the video is connected to SNSD, although the complaint did not concern the political affiliation of the video’s author, but rather the content of the public officials’ statements and the context in which they were made.
The public gathering at which the disputed messages were delivered was organized by the Republika Srpska Pensioners’ Association, which finances its activities from the budget and which, according to data from the Odgovorno.st platform, has received over 700 thousand BAM in public funds. Despite the fact that non-governmental organizations are prohibited from political activity, the president of this association previously publicly supported an SNSD candidate in elections, and for this campaign, which is already well underway, organized a gathering at which SNSD candidates for key positions delivered political speeches, although this is prohibited at events financed with public funds. However, since the CEC refused to conduct proceedings, the circumstances of organizing this gathering were not even examined.
The CEC also refused to act on the part of the complaint concerning the prohibition of promising monetary rewards or other material benefits. The Commission states that it was not possible to clearly establish from the statements that these were concrete promises made to gain support, which is why the complaint was not forwarded to the competent municipal election commission either. Thus, statements about votes, pension increases, and “the premier’s cash” were not sufficient for the complaint to even be considered before CEC members.
