Popovic Defends Radic: Prosecuted Over What He Said

Dragan Popovic, director of the Center for Practical Politics, has argued that no court will convict military analyst Aleksandar Radic, who was placed in detention this week after an arrest warrant had first been issued against him. Popovic stated that, in his judgment, this is a prosecution over spoken words rather than an offense that would hold up in court.

Radic, one of the country’s best known commentators on military and security affairs, is behind bars at a moment when prosecutors are pursuing a case against him over criminal offenses in the field of national security. Popovic offered his assessment from the vantage point of an observer sympathetic to the defense, not from that of a court that has yet to establish the facts.

The charges leveled against Radic are not minor. He is accused of offenses in the domain of espionage and terrorism, and the relevant authorities maintain that grounds exist to open the case. In terms of legal weight, these rank among the most serious offenses in the Serbian criminal code, carrying heavy sentences and cases in which detention is the rule rather than the exception.

An analyst’s assessment, not a court’s verdict

Popovic specified that no court will convict Radic “despite the pressure,” making clear that he is speaking to his own reading of the likely outcome, not to any official position of the judiciary. His claim belongs to the public debate that accompanies every sensitive case, in which the arguments of the defense and the prosecution collide before a panel of judges reaches a decision.

The director of the Center for Practical Politics went a step further and questioned the very decision to open the case. He criticized Supreme Public Prosecutor Nenad Stefanovic, describing him as a “party prosecutor” and suggesting the indictment carries a political tint. Prosecutors, for their part, typically reject such assessments and insist that they act solely on the evidence available to them, regardless of who the accused may be.

For years Radic has commented on weapons, defense budgets and security assessments, often sharply and without hedging. Popovic ties that very public role to the arrest, arguing that the accused is being prosecuted for what he said in a phone call with associates rather than for a proven act. Prosecutors, however, maintain that they hold grounds that go beyond the mere expression of an opinion.

Does the burden of proof match the weight of the charge?

When the state accuses someone of espionage or terrorism, the burden of proof is exceptionally high. That is the essence of Popovic’s message: grave charges demand exceptionally strong evidence, not indirect conclusions drawn from intercepted conversations. If the indictment ultimately rests largely on the content of phone calls, the court will face the question of where free speech ends and a criminal offense begins.

The judiciary will have to answer that question through evidence presented in court, not through statements to the media, whether from the defense or the prosecution. Until then, two assessments stand opposed: one that sees the case as prosecution over words, and another that insists serious grounds lie behind the indictment. Where, in your view, does the line run between public criticism and an act that answers before a court?