What was once meant to be an exception for urgent technical matters—telephone and electronic sessions of the Government—has now become standard practice, compromising the principles of transparency, accountability, quality decision-making, and democratic governance.

This evaluation comes from various sources speaking to “Vijesti,” reflecting on the increasing trend of the Montenegro Government making significant decisions through telephone sessions.

This month alone, the Government has made several key decisions in electronic and telephone sessions, such as extending the tenure of acting Police Administration director Lazar Šćepanović and appointing Ivica Janović as the full-time director of the National Security Agency (ANB). Other actions include imposing sanctions against Belarus, changing the statute of the Regional Diving Center, and determining plans for a thematic session regarding concessions at Podgorica and Tivat airports.

Marić: Undermining Decision-Making Quality

Boris Marić, a lawyer and former Secretary General of the Government, argued that the excessive frequency of telephone sessions undermines the effectiveness and quality of decision-making.

He noted that the Government has established procedures, primarily defined by its own acts and regulations.

“These acts adequately detail the working methods and procedures for Government decision-making. The Government primarily follows the process for preparing an act for decision-making and subsequently executes adopted decisions with the help of ministries and other administrative bodies,” Marić clarified.

He emphasized that most preparations and control of the materials for the Government occur in working bodies, such as committees.

“Given the diversity of the authorities, committees often fail to comprehensively discuss specific issues, leading to controversial topics reaching the Government in, for lack of a better term, raw form. This then morphs into debate resembling a parliamentary discussion, which shouldn’t typically characterize a Government session,” Marić remarked.

He stated that telephone sessions were meant to be an exception.

“They should be held when there is legitimate urgency for specific issues. Anything that isn’t urgent can await a regular government session,” Marić posited.

Nikola Obradović, a program associate at the Center for Civic Education (CCE), shares the sentiment that the practice of making critical decisions through electronic or telephone Government sessions significantly undermines the principles of transparency, accountability, and democratic governance.

He pointed out that what was intended as an exception, reserved for technical matters or emergencies, has now become routine.

“Data from the Center for Civic Education reveals that 58 percent of the sessions of the 44th Government in the first 15 months of its term were held electronically. Decisions regarding personnel, legislation, the security sector, education, and essential economic and environmental issues are made rapidly, sometimes during late hours or weekends, via messaging apps,” Obradović noted.

He asserted that such practices detract from the institutional culture of dialogue, hinder transparent processes, and impose a lack of clarity in decision-making.

“These methods foster an impression that the government isn’t taking its responsibilities seriously, or that a perpetual state of emergency is being cultivated. In either scenario, it’s a warning about governance quality that warrants concern, which is why we’ve raised this issue and appreciate that some media organizations acknowledge its significance,” Obradović stated.

Government Lacks Response

The Government did not answer “Vijesti’s” inquiries about the criteria for deciding whether a decision should be made via telephone session versus a regular session, how it maintains transparency and legality during telephone decision-making, and whether all sessions are documented and made public.

No response was provided regarding consultations with legal experts about the constitutionality of making strategic and security-related decisions over Viber/WhatsApp, or how they address civil sector claims that this practice undermines institutional order and democratic procedures.

Obradović argued that the prevalence of electronic sessions severely compromises institutional accountability and public oversight, the cornerstones of any democratic framework.

“When the majority of decisions are made outside formal institutional structures, it results in a closed decision-making circle devoid of transparency, dialogue, and genuine control, raising valid questions about the motives behind such an approach,” he stressed.

In this environment, there is no substantive discussion, and no record remains of expressed positions, dangerously diminishing accountability for outcomes. “This leads to further erosion of trust in institutions as well as in the Government’s credibility,” Obradović concluded.

“Visible Negative Consequences”

According to the Government of Montenegro’s website, from January to June 2025, important decisions across various sectors were taken during numerous electronic and telephone sessions.

In January, the Government approved the initiation of hiring 815 police officers in an electronic session. Early February saw a telephone session where proposals for amendments to the Law on Preventing Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism, as well as amendments to the 2025 Budget, were adopted.

A few days later, negotiations began with the Government of Japan regarding a grant for enhancing the Music Center of Montenegro, changes to the Assembly agenda for the “Dr Simo Milošević” Institute in Igalo were discussed, and a proposal to elect a board member for that institute was made.

On February 15, the Government modified a decision regarding leasing coastal areas, and on March 21, it appointed Mladen Mikijelj as director of the Public Company for Coastal Zone Management.

Further changes included amendments concerning negotiations with the United Arab Emirates on tourism and real estate cooperation adopted on March 28, and on April 15, proposals for changes to laws on the Judicial Council, State Prosecutor’s Office, and several administrative issues were accepted.

International sanctions were enacted on April 30 due to the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, cooperation memorandums were signed with Egypt, and decisions were made for the coastal leasing of new beaches.

On May 20, the Government implemented a range of measures against Russia in relation to the Ukraine war, along with legal amendments regarding the recognition of foreign educational documents.

When asked if making significant security and judicial decisions “remotely” could adversely affect Montenegro’s rule of law and democratic framework, Obradović stated that negative consequences are already apparent.

“This is evidenced not only by critical voices within the country but also by pertinent EU documents. Recent weeks have seen the release of a sharp non-paper from the European Commission concerning the rule of law and a resolution from the European Parliament. It’s evident that Brussels is also growing impatient with this governing approach, especially as opportunities for accelerated EU integration arise. The potential long-term damage from the Government’s irresponsible behavior could be immeasurable,” Obradović asserted.

He stressed the importance of demonstrating a resilient rule of law, strong institutions, and societal security:

“This cannot be achieved through decisions made about appointments to the ANB, police, or prosecutor’s office via late-night messages, nor through a multitude of other troubling aspects…”

Obradović also emphasized that within the context of EU integration, this decision-making approach conveys the wrong impression to the EU, suggesting that the leadership either misunderstands or deliberately disregards the standards regarding transparency, accountability, and institutional integrity, crucial for chapters 23 and 24 of negotiations.

Resolution in the Law on Government

Obradović noted the need to address electronic sessions in the anticipated and necessary Law on Government.

“Regrettably, the publicly shared drafts to date do not acknowledge this need, seemingly ignoring numerous recommendations from the civil sector and the public. This represents a missed chance to regulate and scrutinize certain democratically troubling practices, like the frequent occurrence of ‘remote’ decision-making,” he pointed out.

He suggested that the Law on Government should establish clear criteria for when electronic sessions may be convened, the types of decisions eligible for such sessions, and rules for transparency, including mandates for publishing minutes, agenda availability, and limiting secret items during both electronic and regular sessions.

“I remain hopeful that there is still an opportunity to influence substantive changes through amendments to the proposed Law on Government, incorporating mechanisms to prevent the misuse of this practice. This would mark a crucial step toward reinforcing democratic oversight over the executive branch,” Obradović concluded.

News