The District Public Prosecutor’s Office in East Sarajevo (OJT IS) has decided that it will not conduct an investigation against Nenad Nešić on suspicion that during a pre-election rally he offered assistance with employment in police agencies in exchange for electoral results. The Prosecutor’s Office rejected the criminal complaint filed by Transparency International in BiH (TI BiH), claiming it cannot determine the identity of the person whose voice is heard on the submitted audio recording.
Such a decision was made despite the fact that Nešić’s party, the Democratic People’s Alliance (DNS), in an official statement before the election commission confirmed that the disputed words were spoken by Nešić himself, with the justification that he was not promising employment only to party members, but offering assistance to all citizens of Višegrad in job competitions.
TI BiH filed the criminal complaint in September 2024 based on an audio recording of a DNS pre-election rally in Višegrad, at which Nešić called on those gathered to achieve a “good result” and win the elections, and then spoke about the possibility of employing people from Višegrad in institutions and police agencies at the BiH level.
“I don’t know if you saw, a few days ago a competition was announced for the Border Police, shout out if you have someone to apply, to compete, I will help. I will arrange with my colleagues in the Council of Ministers for Višegrad to get a certain number of people who will work in the Border Police. Also, there is a competition in SIPA, there is a competition in DKPT. We are talking about security agencies where I can step in somehow“, Nešić stated, emphasizing that he makes no distinction between members and activists of SNSD and DNS.
The acting prosecutor issued a decision not to conduct an investigation in April 2026, concluding that it was not possible to determine that Nenad Nešić’s voice is heard on the recording. What the Prosecutor’s Office cannot determine was determined by the Višegrad Municipal Election Commission. This commission, it should be recalled, after TI BiH’s complaint, determined that Nešić violated the BiH Election Law with his disputed address, for which his party, DNS, was fined 3,000 KM.
In those proceedings, DNS did not dispute that Nešić was the speaker on the recording, but claimed that his words did not constitute a promise of employment, but an offer of assistance to all citizens of Višegrad who meet the competition requirements, whereby the party actually confirmed the speaker’s identity and the authenticity of the address, disputing only its meaning and legal qualification.
TI BiH filed an appeal against the decision not to conduct an investigation, stating that the Prosecutor’s Office was provided with the audio recording, photographs, media reports, social media posts, the OIK decision and DNS’s statement, and requested that Nešić and the rally organizers be questioned. The Chief Prosecutor rejected the appeal, reiterating that it is not possible to determine the speaker’s identity or the location where the recording was made, with the note that unauthorized recording could be grounds for criminal prosecution of the person who made it.
With such an approach, the Prosecutor’s Office disregards the evidence and facts that election authorities have already considered when determining DNS’s responsibility, with the note that there is a possibility of criminal prosecution of the person who made an unauthorized recording and documented the speech at the pre-election rally, despite the fact that it was a public gathering and there is public interest in warning about the commission of a criminal offense, which is permitted by law. In other words, the Prosecutor’s Office is signaling that, instead of investigating electoral abuses by public officials, it is prepared to investigate those who report such occurrences, which may have a deterrent effect on citizens, whistleblowers and other persons who report electoral irregularities and abuses of public resources.
The Prosecutor’s Office decision is particularly concerning in the context of the recent actions of the Central Election Commission of BiH, which assessed messages such as “whoever asks for votes must also work” and “the bag is with the prime minister” from the highest officials of Republika Srpska as “statements and jokes”. Such decisions send the message that even open promises of material benefits to voters will not be effectively sanctioned.
This case is not an exception, but part of a broader pattern of judicial inefficiency. According to TI BiH findings, more than half of corruption complaints end with an order not to conduct an investigation, while almost 30 percent of initiated investigations are subsequently suspended.
When prosecutor’s offices refuse to examine available evidence, and authorities reduce promises financed by public funds to a joke or non-binding statement, the integrity of the electoral process is further undermined. Public officials are thus left with room to use jobs, budget funds and other public resources as an instrument of political promotion, without an effective institutional response and deterrent sanctions.
