Attorney Vukoman Golubović, appointed as a reserve defense attorney ex officio for all defendants in the murders of Nemanja Prelević (28) and Danilo Peković (20) in Veruša on October 17, 2020, informed the president of the special panel, Judge Vesna Kovačević, that he would not be attending today’s main trial hearing.

This was stated by Judge Vesna Kovačević in the courtroom of the Higher Court in Podgorica.

Closing arguments were set for today. However, due to procedural requirements not being met, the hearing has been rescheduled to April 24th.

Attorney Aleksandar Šćekić also did not attend the hearing today, as he did not agree to be replaced by attorney Stefan Jovanović.

“In a phone call, lawyer Vukoman Golubović informed me that he could not and would not appear at the main hearing, even though he retained the right to do so until April 18. He explicitly stated that he would not appear,” Judge Kovačević remarked.

She further explained that as the president of the special council, she sent a letter to the president of the Higher Court, Zoran Radović, on April 10, after attorney Stefan Jovanović made a comment on the record. The defendant, Mirčeta Mihailović, expressed his rejection of the proxy power of attorney granted to Jovanović by attorney Šćekić, primarily due to attorney Šćekić’s absence.

Defendant Mihailović revoked the power of attorney given to attorney Šćekić. Judge Vesna Kovačević proposed that attorney Stefan Jovanović officially represent defendant Mihailović, who had been covering for attorney Šćekić until now.

The judge affirmed that attorney Jovanović was well-acquainted with the case files and would effectively safeguard the interests of the defendant, ensuring adequate representation.

“All of this is aimed at preventing any potential abuse by the defendants, who have persistently canceled the powers of attorney for their defense attorneys,” the judge stated.

At the onset of the primary trial hearing, the judge read aloud a letter from defendant Mihailović, in which he announced the cancellation of the power of attorney for attorney Aleksandar Šćekić.

“The President of the High Court informed me in a letter dated April 11 that the case file does not indicate that Mirčeta Mihailović revoked the power of attorney for attorney Šćekić, and therefore, a defense attorney cannot be appointed ex officio,” Judge Kovačević noted.

Attorney Danilo Mićović, representing defendant Vasilije Đukić, addressed the court, arguing that the role of reserve defense attorney is not as defined by law.

“This approach does not effectively resolve such procedural challenges. The defense has not impeded the court process nor is it our intent. The current issues in the courtrooms of the higher courts in Bijelo Polje and Podgorica are the result of circumstances from several years back. This is not to attribute blame to anyone. Regarding the reserve defense attorney, I believe attorney Golubović acted within the law. The trial is not a game that requires a substitute. A defense attorney is appointed where representation is mandatory. If a defense attorney is chosen, there’s no need for an ex officio attorney. Furthermore, when an ex officio defense attorney is assigned, it is designated for a single defendant. The order is established from the list of attorneys of the Bar Association of Montenegro. Attorney Stefan Jovanović cannot serve as anyone’s ex officio defense attorney unless selected appropriately,” Mićović stated.

He emphasized that the Bar Association of Montenegro has clear rules and does not allow for improvisation.

When asked whether he wished for any present defense attorneys to represent him, defendant Mirčeta Mihailović replied:

“I do not want any of the lawyers present to serve as my ex officio attorney. The court should allow me time to consider and hire my preferred attorney.”

Judge Kovačević indicated that if the defendant fails to do so, the court will appoint him a defense attorney ex officio.

The Special State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica has indicted an eight-member criminal organization led by the accused Marko Zekić, who is currently on the run.

Besides Zekić, the indictment includes Miomir Đukić, Dragan Biletić, Vasilije Đukić, Mirčeta Mihailović, Nenad Miličić, Goran Milašinović, Branislav Ivanović, and Dragan Tarić. According to the evidence collected, Marko Zekić, Vasilije Đukić, and Mihailović together premeditatedly executed Prelević and Peković on October 17, 2020, in Uvač.

Milašinović, Biletić, Ivanović, and Miličić assisted in the heinous murders of two residents from Podgorica by creating conditions and eliminating obstacles. Part of this group was tasked with tracking the movements of Prelević and Peković to identify the optimal time and location for their murder.

“Upon learning that the targets would be at Prelević’s house in Uvač on October 17, they relayed this information to Zekić, Đukić, and Mirčeta Mihailović, who headed towards Veruša,” the indictment states. It also mentions that Mihailović supplied an automatic rifle and a pistol to Zekić and Đukić, who, after a brief confrontation at the door of the cottage, fatally shot Prelević multiple times in the head and upper body. Afterward, they entered the dwelling and killed Peković. Intercepts from the Sky application used by members of this criminal organization revealed that the murder of Prelević and Peković had been orchestrated months in advance. Marko Zekić from Berane engaged in a physical altercation with Nemanja Prelević in a bar in Podgorica, which ultimately led him to decide to kill him and inform the other members of his criminal organization about it, as detailed in the indictment.

The indictment elaborates that according to evidence from France, Zekić informed other defendants about his bar confrontation with Prelević via the Sky application, stating his intent to kill Prelević.

“From further communications on August 5, 2020, Zekić disclosed that he resolved to end Nemanja Prelević’s life due to their altercation and his disputes with Vladimir Bajčeta and Marinka Banović in the restaurant. He mentioned possessing a firearm and inquired with other defendants about Prelević’s residence, vehicle, and the location of his house,” the indictment reveals.

News