Police Director’s Actions Spark Debate Over Political Speech in Montenegro

The ongoing conflict between **Milan Knezevic**, a member of the Democratic People’s Party, and **Lazar Scepanovic**, the Director of the Police Administration in Montenegro, has intensified following a public insult directed at Scepanovic. The incident has prompted the Human Rights Action (HRA) organization to urge the police administration to reconsider its decision to initiate a misdemeanor procedure against Knezevic for allegedly insulting Scepanovic during a protest.

The dispute began when Knezevic referred to Scepanovic as a “bukva” (which translates to “beech tree”) during a protest in Zeta on **December 31, 2025**. This statement has ignited a larger discussion regarding the boundaries of political criticism directed at public officials. HRA highlights that such actions can infringe upon political speech and diverge from European standards of freedom of expression.

According to HRA, the police initiated the misdemeanor procedure on **February 27, 2023**, after Knezevic was informed that the Security Department in Podgorica had filed a request against him for insulting Scepanovic publicly. The statement made by Knezevic was a part of his critique of the police’s handling of the protest.

HRA underscores that the **European Court of Human Rights** protects expressions that may be seen as exaggerated or provocative, especially in political discourse concerning public interest. The organization emphasizes that while the term used by Knezevic could be considered offensive, it falls under the umbrella of protected political speech.

The HRA statement noted, “Although such an expression may be perceived as insulting, according to the standards of the European Court of Human Rights, freedom of expression encompasses statements that offend, shock, or disturb. This protection is particularly significant in political discourse and criticism directed at public officials.”

They further argue that public officials, including Scepanovic, should be subject to a higher degree of criticism in political debates, even if that includes sharp or offensive rhetoric. The organization contends that pursuing a misdemeanor procedure for Knezevic’s comment represents an undue limitation on political speech.

In the context of democratic societies, the HRA points to various judgments where phrases such as “idiot,” “hooligan,” or “beast,” directed at politicians during protests, were deemed part of political criticism that must be tolerated.

HRA has called for the police administration to reevaluate its stance and withdraw the misdemeanor procedure against Knezevic. They assert that should this not occur, the misdemeanor court in Podgorica is obligated to apply the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights and uphold freedom of expression in political discussions.

During a recent session in parliament, Knezevic acknowledged calling Scepanovic a “bukva,” asserting that the legal action taken against him would not intimidate him. In response to the controversy, Scepanovic stated that the action taken by the Security Department followed official protocol, emphasizing that he would not allow anyone to tarnish the reputation of the police.

“I will protect every officer, but I will not tolerate insults directed at the head of the police,” Scepanovic remarked, addressing the situation. Knezevic, however, refuted claims that he had used other derogatory terms, asserting that he would seek resolution in court.

The tensions surrounding this case reflect broader issues regarding the limits of political speech in Montenegro and the responsibilities of public officials to withstand public criticism. As the situation unfolds, the implications for political discourse and the protection of freedom of expression remain a focal point of concern for both civil society and public institutions.