Legal Expert Demands Resignation Over Sarajevo Siege Remarks Amidst BiH Court Appointments Controversy

The contentious process of selecting new judges for Bosnia and Herzegovina's Constitutional Court, an institution critical to safeguarding the nation's constitutional framework, has once again reignited public debate. Two positions are currently vacant following the retirement of Valerija Galić and Mirsad Ćeman, who reached the mandatory age of 70.

While authorities navigate the formal procedures, public discussion increasingly questions whether this selection risks repeating past patterns of political influence and ambiguous candidate evaluation criteria. Heightened political tensions also stem from recent remarks by Sabina Ćudić, president of Naša stranka (Our Party), made before European parliamentarians at Sarajevo's City Hall. She asserted that the destruction of Sarajevo during the war was not driven by ethnic or religious motives but rather by a struggle for political power.

This interpretation provoked sharp condemnation, with legal expert Enver Išerić labeling her assessment as utterly unacceptable during a segment on Hayat TV’s “7Plus” program. Išerić described Ćudić's statement as “scandalous, shameful, and impudent” for a high-ranking Bosnian official, who was elected by citizens to serve in the state parliament and guide the country towards European integration. He emphasized the gravity of characterizing the shelling and burning of Sarajevo's iconic City Hall as merely a power struggle, especially in a city that endured aggression, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, mass killings, rape, genocide, the murder of children, and the longest siege in modern history.

Išerić insisted that, at a minimum, Ms. Ćudić should resign. Acknowledging this as an unlikely outcome, he urged citizens of Sarajevo and Sarajevo Canton to electorally penalize such policies. He further posited that such public statements are not born of ignorance but rather a deliberate strategy by individuals to curry favor with specific centers of power. He added that these individuals are often ashamed to identify as Bosniaks or acknowledge their presence during the aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina. Citizens, he argued, must recognize and condemn these actions to prevent further detriment to the state.

The legal expert also sharply criticized the slow pace of European integration and the lack of reforms under the ruling “Trojka” coalition. Išerić claimed that the governing parties misled the public with unfulfilled promises. “They vowed to accelerate Bosnia and Herzegovina's path to the European Union, yet they are unable to adopt two laws and meet conditions to access over a billion euros in waiting funds,” Išerić stated. He highlighted Naša stranka’s pledges for a robust fight against corruption, for the rule of law, and for order, alongside claims that funds were ample if theft ceased. “Today, we witness the relentless borrowing by Sarajevo Canton and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Where is the money? Financial resources are clearly insufficient for the normal functioning of these government levels,” he warned.

On the issue of corruption, Išerić pointed to the political instrumentalization of the judiciary through what he called fabricated cases. As an illustration, he cited a 2021 criminal complaint against 50 individuals concerning the public transport company GRAS, which he believes was a current government attempt to simulate anti-crime efforts. Instead of seeking systemic solutions, Sarajevo Canton, according to Išerić, resorted to activating this case pre-election. After the cantonal prosecutor’s office initially ordered no investigation based on clear reports from the FBiH Tax Administration and Financial Police, authorities reactivated the case ahead of general elections to gain votes – a policy Išerić deems highly perilous.

Išerić, a former candidate for both entity and state-level constitutional courts, concluded that the entire process of appointing new Constitutional Court judges has lost its credibility and devolved into a farce. He underscored that authorities are consciously violating established procedures. According to the BiH Constitution, the House of Representatives of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Parliament selects four judges, while the National Assembly of Republika Srpska chooses two. A 2005 decision stipulated that the Selection and Appointment Commission should form a special working group for the competitive procedure. However, the House of Representatives unilaterally formed its own working group, thereby breaching its own regulations.

“In that working group, which assesses expertise and scores candidates, the majority of members are not even legal professionals, nor does it include a single judge from the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina,” Išerić explained. He noted that candidate interviews are conducted superficially. The Constitution mandates that judges must be distinguished legal experts of high moral character, yet no one has defined clear criteria for evaluating these qualities for one of the most critical state functions. “The entire process is absolutely closed to the public, despite requiring complete transparency. If it were up to me, this commission would be composed exclusively of Constitutional Court judges, as that institution is the guardian of the state and the rule of law,” Išerić concluded.