"MEMORY LOSS"

Key witnesses in the "Ventilators" affair: Will Ganibegović, Kalajdžić and Alagić be held accountable for perjury?

Preconditions for initiating an investigation due to the existence of grounds for suspicion that a criminal offense was committed - Giving a false statement, under Article 235 of the Criminal Code of B&H, the Prosecutor's Office of B&H told us

Ganibegović, Kalajdžić and Alagić: Said one thing at the Court, another thing in the Prosecution. Avaz

M. Aščić

Key witnesses in the "Ventilators" affair, in which Fadil Novalić and others are being tried for organized crime worth 10.5 million KM, as things stand, could be held accountable for false testimony.

These are witnesses Edita Kalajdžić, Secretary of the Government of FB&H, Hasan Ganibegović, former head of the Prime Minister's Office, but also Sanita Alagić, assistant director of FCPA.


Preconditions for initiating an investigation have been met

All of them, as determined by the Prosecutor's Office of B&H during the proceedings, changed their statements at the main hearing, in relation to the testimonies during the investigation and the hearing in the Prosecutor's Office.

This judicial institution confirmed to "Avaz" today that the B&H Criminal Procedure Code, in the provision of Article 243, prescribes that if there is a reasonable suspicion that a witness or expert witness gave a false statement at the main trial, the judge or the presiding judge may order to make a special transcript of the record of the testimony of a witness or expert to be submitted to the prosecutor.

They say that the Prosecutor's Office of B&H, as a body of criminal prosecution, will consider further activities in this case.

- The testimonies of individual witnesses given at the main trial are obviously contrary to the testimonies given by these witnesses in the investigation, and the material evidence presented, which fulfills the preconditions for initiating an investigation due to the existence of grounds for suspicion that a criminal offense was committed - giving false testimony under Article 235. Of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina - the Prosecutor's Office told "Avaz".

They remind that during 2020 and 2021, the Prosecutor's Office of B&H received several reports related to this criminal offense, and cases that have been pending have been formed.

- The public is aware that in 2013, one accused was sentenced to one year and three months in prison for giving false testimony in a war crimes case.

When it comes to Kalajdžić, Ganibegović and Alagić, who has been changing the testimony given in the investigation for almost three hearings, it is evident that key witnesses lost their memory overnight. They justified the changes in testimony by pressure from the Prosecution during the hearing.

However, in the minutes of the hearings, which they duly signed, these witnesses never mentioned anywhere that any of the prosecutors had put pressure on them.

The Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina has even declared Ganibegović an enemy witness, due to statements given in court, which do not agree with the statements from the investigation and material evidence.

In addition, Ganibegović, Novalić, Kalajdžić and Ganibegović were participants in the viber group GENSEK, through which the agreement on the procurement of equipment went.

One of the messages, which Kalajdžić wrote to Novalić, is: "Boss, talk to Sebija directly about the price of a ventilators."


The prosecutor read an earlier statement

But when the ventilators arrived, Kalajdžić sent a new message: Seb. is calling, ventilators are bad”.

When asked by the prosecutor to clarify these messages, she replied that she did not remember.

On the other hand, Alagić claimed in her testimony in the investigation that Fikret Hodžić personally brought an offer for ventilators to the FCPA, and at the trial that this was not true and that the offer had reached the reception desk.

She changed her statement in another part. When asked by Hukeljić "Did you believe and know when making changes in the contract that it was not a technical error, but the subject of the contract", she answered that she did not know.

However, the prosecutor read an earlier statement in which she said during the investigation: "Everything was very symptomatic for me, from the name of the company, to the technical error."