Controversy Erupts as Police Chief Pursues Charges Against MP

A public dispute has emerged between Milan Knežević, a member of parliament and leader of the Democratic People’s Party, and the Director of the Police Administration, Lazar Šćepanović. The conflict escalated after Knežević referred to Šćepanović using a derogatory term during a protest in Zeta on December 31, 2025. In response, the police have initiated a misdemeanour procedure against Knežević for what they consider public insult.

The action has drawn significant attention from the organization Human Rights Action (HRA), which has urged the police administration to reconsider its decision. HRA argues that this legal move could significantly restrict political discourse and diverge from European standards of freedom of expression. The organization highlights the principles established by the European Court of Human Rights, which protect even provocative or insulting statements made in the context of political discussion.

The initial remarks that sparked this controversy occurred when Knežević criticized the police’s handling of the protestors, labeling Šćepanović as “bukva” (meaning “beech tree” in English). This comment reignited a broader debate regarding the limits of political criticism directed at officials. Not long before this incident, Šćepanović had also reacted to a journalist’s metaphor comparing the police to a “ficus,” which had similarly provoked public backlash.

On February 27, 2026, Knežević was formally notified that officers from the Security Department in Podgorica had filed a request to initiate misdemeanour proceedings against him. They cited his public insult as the basis for the case. HRA contends that such expressions, while potentially offensive, fall within the realm of protected free speech, particularly during political protests and discussions of public interest.

HRA has emphasized that public officials like Šćepanović must endure a greater degree of criticism in political discourse, which should allow for harsher rhetoric, including insulting language. They argue that initiating a legal procedure based on Knežević’s comment represents an excessive limitation on political speech. Their position is firmly rooted in the established practices of the European Court of Human Rights, which underscore the high level of protection afforded to political speech in democratic societies.

The organization has called for the Police Administration to withdraw the misdemeanour proceedings against Knežević. Should the police not comply, HRA expects the Misdemeanour Court in Podgorica to apply the European Court’s standards in its ruling, thereby safeguarding the freedom of expression in political debates.

Knežević has publicly acknowledged that he did indeed label Šćepanović as “bukva” during the protest, asserting that the ongoing legal proceedings will not intimidate him. He stated, “I did use that term, but I will not be silenced by this process.”

In contrast, Šćepanović defended the actions of the police, stating that the officers acted out of a sense of duty and submitted the necessary requests to determine accountability. He firmly stated, “I will not allow anyone to tarnish the reputation of the police. I will protect every officer, but I will not tolerate insults directed at police leadership.”

The tension between Knežević and Šćepanović reflects a broader issue regarding the boundaries of political expression and accountability in public institutions. As the situation develops, the implications for political discourse and freedom of speech in the region remain to be seen.