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 continued criticism from experts, activists, and international organizations.
One of their main concerns is related to, 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 to deal with what the law says,” lawyer Bo?o Preljevi?, who after the fall of Slobodan Miloševi? in Serbia was Minister of 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 also shared by Predrag Petrovic, 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.
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 towards 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 Vu?i?, 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.
“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 allegations by 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 be 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 prohibited 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 violation has been committed.
“With us, it is possible for citizens to legitimize themselves anywhere,” says Prellevi?.
He sharply criticizes the way 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 that 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 at all over the security service. Then, there is a security service tailored to those who are most inclined to usurp power,” says Prellevi?.
To whom does the BIA report under the law?
Petrovic emphasizes that the BIA, in theory, should be accountable 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 so-called “friendly conversations” with the BIA, even though in practice those calls are presented as voluntary and without consequences.
But the fact that these conversations usually involve people who criticize or oppose the government raises serious doubts about their intent, according to Prelleviç.
“Clearly, this is an abuse of the security service,” Petrovic also claims.
He believes that the BIA, in practice, serves the leadership of the ruling party, President Aleksandar Vu?i? and his closest circle, being used to protect their power and interests. (REL)