Prosecutors in Podgorica are looking into whether Danilo Mandić—nephew and informal bodyguard of Parliament Speaker Andrija Mandić—misused an official parliamentary vehicle during an incident where he allegedly injured two individuals in Podgorica.

This information was shared with “Vijesti” yesterday by the Podgorica Basic State Prosecutor’s Office (ODT).

“We would like to inform you that the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office has opened a case ex officio concerning the mentioned event,” they stated in response to inquiries about whether the investigation was initiated independently or based on a report regarding the alleged improper use of the Parliament’s official vehicle by Danilo Mandić on the night of the incident.

The Higher State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica is considering the case against Danilo Mandić, suspecting him of injuring Darko Perović and Aris Turković in the city during the night from Friday to Saturday. According to police reports, Mandić allegedly blocked Perović and Turković’s path using an official parliamentary vehicle—a Range Rover—before firing “several shots at them, resulting in injuries to their legs.” On Monday, a judge from the Podgorica Higher Court ordered Mandić’s detention for up to 30 days.

For five days, neither the Parliament nor Andrija Mandić has commented on the incident nor responded to inquiries from “Vijesti.”

DPS Calls for Hearing of Marković and Šćepanović

In light of this case, opposition parties, including the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) and Social Democrats (SD), have indicated plans to initiate actions aimed at removing the Speaker of the Parliament. As of the publication of this issue of “Vijesti,” such motions had not yet been filed.

DPS leader Danijel Živković stated yesterday that Andrija Mandić bears “direct responsibility for undermining the credibility of state institutions,” asserting that his party is less concerned about how others might describe their initiative. He announced that the DPS will also request a control hearing for the Supreme State Prosecutor Milorad Marković and acting Director of the Police Administration Lazar Šćepanović regarding this matter.

At a press conference yesterday, Živković accused both law enforcement and the prosecution of attempting to conceal details of the case.

“The prosecutor was not present at the scene. This is a serious scandal…” he remarked.

SD MP Nikola Zirojević informed “Vijesti” the day before yesterday that they would be advocating for Mandić’s dismissal, arguing that his accountability is glaringly evident.

“It is clear that, as a member of a supposed personal security detail—something he is not legally entitled to—he hired his closest relative, someone with an extensive criminal record who has frequently been in police custody and sought after by security forces,” Zirojević elaborated.

Back in early March of the previous year, Mandić managed to survive a vote regarding his dismissal initiated by the DPS, who claimed he was unfit for his position.

Challenge in Removing Mandić

According to the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, a motion to remove the Speaker requires signatures from at least 10 MPs. The SD has three members, while the DPS has 17, thus they could secure enough support to initiate the motion. If it reaches the agenda and faces a vote, approving the removal of the Parliament Speaker necessitates a majority of the total MPs, which amounts to at least 41.

As it stands, the forecast for the announced initiative to successfully gather necessary support for Mandić’s removal appears uncertain. Miodrag Laković, an MP from the ruling Europe Now Movement, expressed skepticism regarding the justification of the demand for Mandić’s removal at this time. It is also highly likely that coalition partners involved in “For the Future of Montenegro,” including Mandić’s New Serbian Democracy and Milan Knežević’s Democratic People’s Party, would not support such a motion.

Recently, the Democrats informed “Vijesti” that parliamentary assets, including official vehicles, are not under the Speaker’s control per regulations, raising doubts about whether Andrija Mandić could be held accountable for misusing an official car. Additionally, the Socialist People’s Party, the Albanian Forum, and United Montenegro stated to the newspaper that they would not back the initiative.

Force MP Ilir Čapuni indicated he would vote in favor of dismissing Mandić. When questioned about whether Mandić should resign since his nephew operated the official vehicle during the alleged attack, he initially treated it as a personal matter. However, he later noted that the evident disregard for the Law on Minority Rights and Freedoms at a parliamentary session discussing the ratification of agreements with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) warranted his affirmative vote.

Čapuni had previously requested a halt to the session, claiming that these agreements arguably threaten the rights of minority communities. His request was turned down by Mandić and Minister of Public Works Majda Adžović, who asserted the agreements do not pose such threats. The Parliament subsequently ratified the agreements later that evening.

The Civic Movement (GP) URA hinted yesterday that they would support the initiative regarding Mandić.

No response was received from the Bosniak Party, MPs Mehmed Zenka and Adrijan Vuksanović, or their colleague Jevrosima Pejović regarding their stance on the proposed removal of the legislative chamber’s leader.

Should they (along with independent MP Radinka Ćinćur) align with DPS, SD, GP URA, and Čapuni to dismiss Mandić, they would still find themselves at least six votes short of the 41 required for his removal (yielding only 35 votes).

ODT: Investigation Challenges Due to Lack of Information

Following the shooting that left Perović and Turković injured, an investigation on-site was hindered due to police officers lacking immediate details about the situation and failing to direct the state prosecutor to any possible evidence or material found at the scene.

The Podgorica ODT informed “Vijesti” yesterday that their on-duty prosecutor was apprised of the incident on April 19 at 5:01 AM.

Similarly, the Police Directorate confirmed this timeline, asserting that prior to this, they had been engaged in measures against Perović, who was eluding police after causing a traffic accident, which led to his arrest.

Police also stated that around 3:40 AM that day, they received calls from citizens reporting a conflict in Podgorica’s center involving a firearm. Officers claimed to have found Perović on the scene, but he refused to present identification and subsequently fled, while no other individuals were located besides eyewitnesses.

They elaborated on the event chronology, stating that they conducted three inspections and searches of the crime scene area that morning to identify potential evidence. They documented these efforts with accompanying photographs.

In their statement, they detailed when they notified the primary and higher state prosecutors and noted that Perović had not provided accurate information regarding the circumstances of his injuries.

Moreover, they indicated a substantial number of surveillance cameras had been examined and information collected from various individuals, revealing that both the injured parties and the suspect had been present in the same bar on the night of the incident.

“The movement of the ‘Range Rover’ suspected to have been used in the crime by DM was also tracked. Through the investigation, it was discovered that the now-suspected DM did indeed use a firearm against both DPs and another injured party, AT, who was identified,” they affirmed.

This briefing followed “Vijesti” reporting that Perović, during a session with the prosecutor, claimed it wasn’t Mandić who shot him, but that police coerced him into blaming the Podgorica resident. The other victim, Turković, echoed this sentiment, stating he could not recollect the details of the incident, including how he was injured, and both declared their intention not to pursue charges against Mandić.

Mandić’s lawyer, Miroje Jovanović, told “Vijesti” yesterday that based on the evidence gathered so far against his “innocently accused client,” it can be definitively concluded that Mandić did not participate in any criminal act on April 19.

Ivanović’s Silence on the Shooting

Deputy Prime Minister and prominent PES representative Filip Ivanović opted not to comment on the shooting incident involving Danilo Mandić during a session of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee (AFET) in Brussels yesterday.

Croatian MEP Tomislav Sokol inquired about his perspective on the “mafia shooting,” asking, “Does this align with European values, and do you believe he (Andrija Mandić) should resign because of it?”

Ivanović responded that he had no opinion on the shooting incident, expressing surprise that it had been raised in the European Parliament.

News