Petrovic says the BIA’s approach to these students is worrying, as it treats them as “internal enemies.” He refers to a propaganda film, broadcast during the celebration of BIA Day in October last year, in which the student movement was presented as a destructive element and where it was emphasized that the agency, together with the country’s president, Aleksandar Vučić, had managed to prevent a so-called “color revolution.”
The Serbian Security and Intelligence Agency (BIA) – the main civilian intelligence institution – has long been at the center of public debate: is it a mechanism for state protection, or an instrument of power for political control? Established in 2002 as a successor to previous security structures, the BIA has a clear legal mandate: information gathering, counterintelligence and protection of Serbia’s constitutional order. However, the way this mandate is implemented in practice has prompted ongoing criticism from experts, activists and international organizations.
One of their main concerns is, as they say, the BIA’s interference in political life in Serbia. “We wouldn’t be living in a country like this if the Security and Information Agency were dealing with what the law says,” lawyer Božo Preljević, who after the fall of Slobodan Milošević in Serbia was Minister of the Interior in the interim government of that country, tells Radio Free Europe’s “Ura” program. “Not only the BIA, but also other intelligence services are mainly concerned with preserving the power of the ruling party,” he adds. This view is shared by Predrag Petrović, director of research at the Belgrade Center for Security Policy. “For many years, the BIA has been mainly concerned with protecting the regime and people close to the ruling party,” he says.
“ENEMY NUMBER 1”
Since late 2024, Serbia has been facing massive anti-government protests led by students, which erupted after a tragic incident at the Novi Sad Railway Station, where 16 people lost their lives. Students have leveled accusations at the government, attributing part of the responsibility for the event, mainly due to the lack of transparency in signing contracts with construction companies.
Petrovic says that the BIA’s approach to these students is worrying, as it treats them as “internal enemies.” He refers to a propaganda film broadcast during the celebration of BIA Day in October last year, where the student movement was presented as a destructive element and where it was emphasized that the agency, together with the president of the state, Aleksandar Vučić, had managed to prevent a so-called “color revolution.” According to him, this clearly shows that for the current regime, students have become “enemy number one.” “I have no illusions that the BIA would be even more repressive towards students if Serbia were not in Europe and surrounded by members of the European Union and NATO,” says Petrovic.
IS HE INTERCEPTING BIA CITIZENS?
“Of course,” says Petrovic. “Inside it there is a monitoring center, equipped with digital surveillance technology, including special programs for tracking mobile phones,” he explains. According to the allegations of the organization Amnesty International, Petrovic recalls, the BIA has also developed cooperation with Russian security services. And, during these surveillance processes, according to him, the legal obligation that wiretapping is carried out only with a court order is often not respected. “Recently we had the case of two students from Novi Pazar, who were arrested based on a wiretapped conversation, which, according to their lawyers, was not subject to a court order,” says Petrovic.
Preljevic explains that, in principle, it is not forbidden for BIA members to legitimize citizens during protests, but adds that this issue in Serbia is not regulated in the same way as in many European countries. According to him, in most European countries, legitimization of citizens is allowed only in cases where there is a clear reason or a committed violation. “In our country, it is possible for citizens to legitimize themselves anywhere,” says Preljevic. He sharply criticizes the way in which the BIA has been developed, emphasizing that it was not conceived as a secret police, but as an institution for the protection of territorial integrity, the fight against economic and ecological crime, and counterintelligence.
He says the problem lies in the fact that, instead of a checked and balanced service, a structure with uncontrolled power has been created that can also be used for intimidation, while the lack of parliamentary and internal control makes it dangerous for citizens and suitable for abuse of power. “When there is no parliamentary and internal control, then there is no control over the security service at all. Then, you have a security service tailored to those who are most inclined to usurp power,” says Prellević.
WHO DOES BIA REPORT TO ACCORDING TO THE LAW?
Petrovic emphasizes that the BIA, in theory, should answer to the Government and be under the control of a “network of institutions”, such as the Parliament, the Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Public Information, but in practice this system, according to him, has been weakened, due to Serbia’s slide towards authoritarianism. Both experts say that citizens have no legal obligation to respond to the so-called “friendly conversations” with the BIA, although in practice these calls are presented as voluntary and without consequences. However, the fact that these calls usually involve people who criticize or oppose the government raises serious doubts about their purpose, according to Preljevic. “Clearly, this is an abuse of the security service”, Petrovic also asserts. He assesses that the BIA, in practice, serves the leadership of the ruling party, President Aleksandar Vučić and his closest circle, being used to protect the government and their interests.
Meanwhile, Prellević goes even further, saying that the agency serves “only one man” and his needs, considering citizens “hostages” of this system. “I think Serbia is writing a book about the abuse of technology, finance and security services to keep only one man and one family in power,” Prellević concludes. (RFE)