Who commissioned your investigation story?
The simple answer is No one.
The investigation into alleged irregularities and pressures within the High Public Prosecutor’s Office in Skopje was not commissioned, funded, or requested by any external actor.
IRL’s interest began with a television report aired on TV channel Kanal 5. In that report, a secret recording was broadcast in which journalist (a colleague of ours) Miroslava Simonovska from Sloboden Pechat recognized herself. The then head of the Skopje Public Prosecutor’s Office, Mustafa Hajrullahi, claimed that confidential documents from an internal supervision process had been leaked to the media. In the same recording, the daughter of then–State Public Prosecutor Ljupčo Kocevski appeared, her face blurred.
The public targeting of a journalist — combined with allegations of illegal document disclosure — raised immediate concerns. For IRL, the potential threat to Simonovska’s safety and professional integrity became the starting point. What began as a question about a secret recording soon evolved into a broader investigation.
Are You Protecting Former State Prosecutor Ljupco Kocevski?
IRL does not protect current or former state officials. Our mandate is the opposite. IRL is funded through international grants to investigate and publish stories on crime, corruption, abuse of office, influence peddling, and systemic irregularities — including those originating from state institutions and appointed officials. Our work has been recognized with regional and international awards, positioning our newsroom among the leading investigative platforms in Southeast Europe and we globally encourage other similar organizations to follow our example.
In the investigation itself, we reported that journalist Miroslava Simonovska expressed disappointment in then–State Public Prosecutor Ljupco Kocevski, stating that he failed to act to protect not only her — but his daughter as well — following the public controversy surrounding the secret recording.
The reporting does not shield Kocevski. On the contrary, it identifies his inaction as a matter of concern. The investigation examines whether the failure to protect officials and journalists could be interpreted as a calculated decision — potentially linked to efforts to preserve his position.
How Did You Obtain the Report on the Oversight of the High Public Prosecutor’s Office Skopje?
The oversight report was not easily accessible. On the contrary, obtaining it proved to be one of the most challenging parts of the investigation. According to IRL’s reporting, the institution took active steps to keep the document from entering the public domain. The report was ultimately obtained through an individual who came forward as a source under the protections provided by the Law on the Protection of Whistleblowers, adopted by The Assembly in 2015.
The source assumed significant personal risk — to reputation, career, and physical safety — in order to enable public scrutiny of how the High Public Prosecutor’s Office in Skopje operates internally.
Under Macedonian law, journalists are not required to disclose their sources. This protection is enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution and Article 12 of the Law on Media. Beyond domestic legislation, IRL states that it adheres to international professional and ethical standards that obligate newsrooms to protect confidential sources who request anonymity for justified reasons.
In this case, the newsroom concluded that disclosure would expose the source to serious risk, especially if some of the threats linked to the broader investigation involved actors connected to violent, cross-border criminal networks — including trafficking in human beings, weapons, and narcotics.
In such circumstances, source protection is not discretionary. It is a professional obligation.
Why Didn’t You Investigate the “SPO Bonuses” Case?
The issue of bonuses in the former Special Prosecutor’s Office (SPO), high travel expenses claimed by members of parliament, the purchase of luxury vehicles by mayors in financially distressed municipalities — these are not new topics. They have been reported on extensively by multiple newsrooms over the years.
IRL has also reviewed these cases. In doing so, the newsroom encountered evidence similar — and in some instances identical — to what had already been made public.
As an investigative outlet, IRL receives dozens of story proposals each month. Many come directly from citizens and concern matters that are deeply important to them. However, editorial decisions are not driven solely by volume or urgency. They are guided by clear criteria: demonstrable public interest, indications of systemic abuse, verifiable evidence, and the potential for measurable social impact.
Choosing not to publish a story on a particular topic does not amount to ignoring it. It reflects an editorial assessment — specifically, whether the reporting would uncover new, previously undisclosed information capable of advancing public understanding beyond what is already known. In investigative journalism, repetition is not impact. Evidence is.
