Piperović: We must stop normalising displays of power, Lazović was the most courteous and helped defuse the tension
A verbal confrontation broke out yesterday in the High Court in Podgorica between defence lawyer Zoran Piperović and Special Prosecutor Miloš Šoškić during a hearing in the criminal proceedings against former senior police official Zoran Lazović, former Chief Special Prosecutor Milivoje Katnić and suspended prosecutor Saša Čađenović. Speaking to Television E, Piperović said the incident occurred while the court was examining a piece of evidence - a memorandum prepared by the Special State Prosecutor's Office - which stated that, on a specific date and time in 2021, Piperović and Lazović had both been in the office of prosecutor Sanja Jovićević. The lawyer categorically denied that this had ever happened and questioned why such a document had been submitted as evidence, arguing that it could only serve to imply something. He also pointed out that, in his view, Lazović had been the most composed person in the courtroom that day because he stood up after the exchange and urged everyone to lower tensions.
The lawyer also issued an apology to the judicial panel and the presiding judge, Veljko Radovanović for the incident. He said the situation was something he could never have imagined, although he had known the memorandum was included in the case file and had waited for it to be introduced into evidence to see what exactly the prosecution intended to prove.
- In such an important case, one that has attracted the attention of the entire Montenegrin public for almost two years, the prosecution proposed as evidence an internal memorandum prepared by the Special State Prosecutor's Office stating that, on a certain day in 2021, during a specified period, I was in Sanja Jovićević's office, and that on the same day, during another specified period, Zoran Lazović was there as well. If you compare the timeframes, there is a twenty-minute overlap suggesting that we could have been in the office together. But we were not. We were never there together. I didn't even see him in the building. I have never visited Sanja Jovićević's office with Zoran Lazović. Sanja Jovićević herself testified as a witness in this case that the two of us had never been in her office together - Piperović said.
„Šoškić remained silent during the reading of evidence“
Piperović also criticised prosecutor Šoškić for remaining silent after the memorandum was read into the record, despite having proposed it as evidence in the indictment.
- Instead of standing up and explaining why he had proposed that document as evidence and what specific allegation in the indictment it was supposed to prove, he said nothing. As I continued explaining how little sense it made, how unusual, uncollegial and improper it was - I won't use a stronger word - I realised I was becoming increasingly upset myself. It is simply incomprehensible that, in such a serious case, you would submit as evidence an internal memorandum, which, incidentally, is not evidence in criminal proceedings, stating that one day, in one particular year, I was with Zoran Lazović in Sanja Jovićević's office. What exactly was the point? What was the implication? In my opinion, there was only one purpose: to stigmatise me, to criminalise me, to suggest that my conduct had somehow been unlawful by implying that I had gone with Zoran Lazović to ask Sanja Jovićević to dismiss a criminal complaint. I told the court that I knew about the criminal complaint against Zoran Lazović no more than my late father did - Piperović said.
He explained that, because of his emotional reaction to the situation, he asked the presiding judge for permission to leave the courtroom briefly. After returning, his colleagues told him that prosecutor Šoškić had stated he had never intended to stigmatise him.
- They told me he said he merely wanted to establish certain facts relating to Zoran Lazović. Fine, But then I ask - why was there a review of the register of everyone entering and leaving the building? Why, out of some five thousand names, was mine singled out? Why was my exact time of entry highlighted, put into an official document and then proposed as evidence in an indictment concerning organised crime, two counts of abuse of office, money laundering and illegal possession of firearms? Why was that important if he had no intention of targeting me or attaching any significance to my presence - Piperović asked.
The lawyer also addressed a question to Supreme State Prosecutor Milorad Marković, asking whether he was aware of what had happened.
- If he is aware, does he intend to call in his prosecutor and ask him: „What exactly were you trying to achieve?“. This concerns a lawyer who is twenty years his senior, someone who has served as both a judge and a prosecutor, and who is certainly not an unknown member of the profession. I am not trying to present myself as especially important, but people know who I am. I think this incident says a great deal about the indictment itself, and it is good that the public can see that -" Piperović said.
„Lazović was the most courteous person in the courtroom, he stood up and said there is no need for tension or hatred“
Piperović said the public should know that, in his opinion, Zoran Lazović behaved more appropriately than anyone else in the courtroom that day.
- He actually made me feel somewhat embarrassed. After I spoke, he stood up and said there was no need for tension, that no one in the courtroom needed to hate or love anyone, and that no one there hated him. I had said that I believed prosecutor Šoškić hated Zoran Lazović, and that I now knew he hated me as well. I don't know why, but I now believe that, based on what happened in open court. I simply ask someone from the prosecution service to speak with him, not necessarily in any disciplinary capacity, but simply to ask what that memorandum was supposed to prove and why I appeared in the case file as evidence. Something in that indictment is apparently being proved through me and my presence. Is that normal? I ask judges, prosecutors and lawyers alike: does anyone know of a similar case? I certainly do not - Piperović said.
He added that no one deserves to be referred to in court merely as „this one“, arguing that legal professionals must reject displays of power and superiority.
- You cannot allow someone younger than you, who every time you address him as „prosecutor“ turns to the presiding judge and says: „Tell him not to address me“. Fine, I won't address him. But yesterday I became „this one“. He turned to the presiding judge and said: „Tell this one not to address me“. No one deserves to be called „this one“ in a courtroom, least of all a senior colleague. We must stop normalising displays of power, untouchability and infallibility, because I think that kind of behaviour can also be perceived as intimidation. I have every reason to think there are people who would like to see me in the same position as Zoran Lazović. I have no problem with that. If anyone has evidence against me, they don't need to prepare internal memoranda - I'm right here. But if lawyers become a problem simply because they refuse to remain silent and instead publicly point out what they believe to be unlawful conduct, who exactly does that bother? Why should it. Am I bothering someone by saying that a judge of the Court of Appeal committed a criminal offense? Should I remain silent about that? Because I understood, if you remain silent and accept the narrative, God will not forgive you. Neither you nor the person you are defending. Because I see that for some people it is not about legality, but about being where they are - Piperović assessed.
„Use of media headlines as evidence questioned“
Piperović also commented on the use of media articles as evidence during the proceedings, questioning whether newspaper headlines could be used to substantiate allegations against defendants.
- We presented as evidence three or four headlines from the newspaper Vijesti, one from the Antena M portal, and another from an unfamiliar website, titled: „Katnić: It is impossible that Čađenović is part of an organised criminal group“. And we are reading this as evidence that he, along with Katnić and Lazović, is a member of an organised criminal group. Does anything about that seem suspicious? Does someone who actually has evidence against someone rely on newspaper headlines? My colleague Stefan Jovanović put it best: „Fine, then we will submit Zoran Piperović’s opinion columns as evidence“. Go ahead, examine them. Newspaper articles are used as evidence only in one case: when they are proposed in the indictment and used to support the allegations contained therein. What does that prove? In my view, it only shows that there is a lack of proper evidence, so anything is used instead - Piperović said, adding that he found the situation professionally disturbing.
He described the entire situation as nonsensical.
- I often repeat a Latin phrase: It is forbidden in court to prove concealed absurdity. And then we end up with tension in the courtroom - sometimes justified, sometimes not. I believe yesterday’s proceedings were anything but procedurally correct, well-mannered or appropriate conduct of criminal proceedings - he said.
Finally, he added that the court had acted properly during the hearing.
- The court was up to the task and behaved correctly. They did not prevent anyone from expressing their position. I could have been interrupted by the presiding judge, Mr Radovanović, and I thank him for not doing so. He evidently, as an experienced judge, saw that I was not quite composed when the official memorandum was read, and allowed me to say what I had on my mind. And I did - Piperović concluded.