Good morning! Please read this text carefully and try to understand just how problematic this process is—not because of Aco Mijajlovic or any of the others detained, but because of the precedent being set with this case. I won’t delve into other parts of this concocted indictment, which sound problematic and deal with serious matters—I will stick to the part concerning the media and public opinion.
This segment, as currently formulated, is dangerous for democracy because it sets a precedent that could be used tomorrow to silence even those media outlets that are today helping to carry out this witch hunt.
Don’t forget to join our Viber community.
The Mijajlovic Case – Criminalization of the Public and the Media
“…through the formation and informal control of a media network, (he) influenced the editorial policies of M.P., E.T., C.D.M., S., P.A., P., and A.M., using such information to shape public opinion, creating a narrative solely aimed at suppressing competition, and for the personal and professional discreditation of all individuals, religious and political organisations, and business entities whose opinions and activities oppose the goals and interests of the criminal organisation…”
Let me point out just two of many contradictions we see in what the prosecution has written.
First contradiction: Did he informally control the media network, or did he merely influence their editorial policies? Or did he just provide information and attempt to influence?
Because if someone is in control, they’re not just influencing—they’re commanding.
If they’re only influencing, they’re not in control.
Did he influence a journalist if he was providing them with information?
Did he pay for article placement? Where is the evidence for that?
If these outlets are in a “network,” does that imply coordination between them?
If you read the columns from some of the media mentioned—those we’re allegedly in a network with—and which target me and my colleagues at CdM, then it’s clear there’s no coordination at all.
Second random contradiction: What kind of “activities of religious organisations” were contrary to the goals of the supposed criminal organisation?
We know who this is hinting at. So, let’s assume Joanikije, Metodije, or Backovic are mentioned in the messages. Were they conducting investigations into crime and corruption?
This “big case” has two dimensions: criminal-legal, and reputational.
For me, the central issue is how the arrest of Mijajlovic and others is being framed, with the aim of causing reputational damage to a significant portion of the public—specifically, the opposition-leaning segment. And all this is being done by a media outlet that holds a total monopoly on information about the case, and which receives private data from the case illegally and under highly suspicious circumstances.
Reality is like a liquid—formless. Kant said that the human mind is not just a passive observer of reality, but it actively shapes experience, like a container that gives liquid its shape, so we can better understand chaotic reality.
Institutions and media each have their own containers. The prosecution creates its container—the case file. The media creates its own—an interpretative narrative.
In this case, it’s hard to tell which container belongs to whom.
It’s hard to figure out what the actual charges are. Are we talking about abuse of office? Leaking information? Wiretapping? Something else? Based on what I’ve read, the case lacks any coherence—no temporal logic, no clear activities, no clear structure of the alleged criminal group.
If justice is the goal, then a media outlet with a monopoly on information undermines that justice—because it’s fighting its own battles. A journalist is pursuing her own wars, some justified, some not.
Because the media has shaped a container not meant for understanding, but for retribution.
And that container is neither symmetrical nor balanced. It’s distorted—shaped not by reality or the public interest, but by personal agendas. When the focus shifts from facts to statements like “he needs to be taken down,” the entire case loses context.
If the prosecution and media are shaping this narrative deliberately, under the influence of an authoritarian-leaning political entity, then our society is in danger.
If Mijajlovic is being prosecuted for smuggling, organised crime, or actual illegal activities, and there’s reasonable suspicion, then so be it.
But if he’s being arrested in order to silence and discredit an entire block of critical media and public voices, then the authorities are doing something both pointless and dangerous.
Pointless – because in the end, they strengthen the very people they’re trying to suppress.
Dangerous – because it spreads fear and undermines democracy.
As Jelena Jovanovic said yesterday morning on Vijesti TV (I’m paraphrasing): “Be careful what you write, you could end up in prison.”
The point is: this case criminalises an entire part of the Montenegrin public and media landscape.
And it doesn’t just criminalise, it threatens.
Instead of pursuing concrete illegal acts, a mechanism is being built to silence those who think differently.
This undermines one of the pillars of democracy: freedom of expression.
It’s not the first time Jelena Jovanovic has actively participated in these kinds of constructs.
One more thing: it’s hypocritical for her to swear by the fight against crime, while at the same time publicly coordinating politically and activist-wise with Milan Knezevic, a man deeply embedded in the Aleksandar Vucic regime, who recently accompanied Andrej Vucic to court in Podgorica—ironically for a lawsuit against Jovanovic’s own media outlet.
If we applied her logic, then she, too, could be associated with Vucic’s regime.
What I’m trying to say is this: No matter how much you dislike any of those arrested, don’t celebrate this action by the prosecution.
Today, the target is someone you dislike—tomorrow, it could be you.
After all, if I let my personal dislikes guide me, maybe I too would be glad that some editors and outlets—who have said and written awful things about me—are now under fire.
Maybe I’d be happy to see certain bot-filled partisan nests being exposed, the same ones I’ve written about in my columns. But just because I don’t like what they say or do doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to do it. And I’m aware that once this door is opened, no one is safe from the hands and intentions of politically weaponised prosecutors.
Jelena Jovanovic and Vijesti should be aware of that, too.
That’s all for today. Have a pleasant rest of the day.
Kind regards,
Ljubomir Filipovic, CdM analyst and columnist
(Columnists’ opinions and views do not necessarily reflect those of the CdM editorial team)