The decision by the BiH Constitutional Court to prohibit the implementation of Republika Srpska contracts is not a “victory for the rule of law,” but a continuation of what Republika Srpska President Siniša Karan described as a long-standing practice of changing BiH’s constitutional order outside the framework of the Dayton Agreement.
Karan was commenting on a Constitutional Court decision finding that a consulting services contract with Dickens & Madson Canada, as well as the use of budget funds for lobbying activities carried out on behalf of Republika Srpska through lobbying agencies, was not in accordance with the BiH Constitution.
Speaking to SRNA, Karan argued that the ruling continued a pattern established over previous decades by high representatives, whom he accused of making decisions without constitutional basis.
He said the Constitutional Court was creating what he described as a new constitutional reality aimed at gradually but fundamentally centralizing BiH.
“The Dayton Constitution is clear: it guarantees Republika Srpska full internal sovereignty over its own territory, competencies, resources and budgetary decisions, as well as the right to act internationally, protect and promote its interests and maintain external contacts within the framework provided by the Constitution,” Karan said.
He argued that preventing Republika Srpska from financing its own activities represented an attack on what he described as its legitimate sphere of action and an attempt to politically and financially isolate it.
“This is not about details. It is about principle,” Karan emphasized.
Karan further argued that the BiH Constitutional Court had ceased to act as a guardian of the Constitution and had instead become a source of constitutional disputes.
“Instead of protecting the constitutional order as it was agreed in Dayton, decision by decision it is reshaping it according to the model of Sarajevo centralism,” he said.
Karan rejected claims that Republika Srpska was undermining the constitutional order, arguing that the opposite was true.
“For years, we have witnessed a reversal of arguments: the BiH Constitutional Court attempts to portray Republika Srpska as the party undermining the constitutional order, while in reality, by undermining Republika Srpska’s sovereignty, it is directly eroding the constitutional structure established in Annex Four,” Karan said.
“BiH is not, and never will be, either a unitary or a one-nation state. It is a multiethnic, federal and complex community,” he added.
Karan also addressed the dispute over so-called state property, arguing that the same approach was being applied by designating resources, land and concession potential as “state property” and then restricting the entities’ ability to manage their own development.
“BiH has no original property of its own. Property belongs to the entities in the 49:51 ratio, and insisting that Sarajevo administer the territory of either entity is an exercise whose ultimate objective is the complete stripping of the entities’ powers,” Karan said.
He concluded that Republika Srpska would not accept what he described as a situation in which the Dayton Agreement is formally invoked while its substance is gradually diminished.
“Defending internal sovereignty and the right to finance our own activities is not a matter of political preference, but a constitutional obligation and a condition for the survival of both Republika Srpska and Dayton BiH itself,” Karan concluded.
Source: RTRS
