Serbian professor alleges government obscured canopy collapse facts with information overload

Dušan Dobromirov, a professor at the Faculty of Technical Sciences in Novi Sad and a member of an inquiry commission, expressed skepticism about the judicial process concerning a collapsed canopy. He believes that systemic issues within Serbia hinder positive outcomes, comparing potential revelations to unraveling a sweater. Dobromirov anticipates that, similar to changes seen in Hungary, truths will gradually emerge over time.

Dobromirov highlighted the difficulties the inquiry commission faces in obtaining information, particularly from private companies, including Chinese subsidiaries. He stated that such data is typically accessible only to investigative bodies like the police, prosecution, and tax administration. The commission is forced to piece together information from publicly available documents, a process he described as assembling a puzzle to identify red flags.

One major red flag identified is the inflated cost of the project. The canopy was initially estimated to cost 25,000 euros but ended up costing 130,000 euros. Dobromirov pointed out that the construction costs were three to five times higher than market prices. Beyond the excessive cost, the fact that the canopy collapsed due to poor quality construction is another significant concern, reflecting a recurring issue in Serbia where infrastructure failures are often shared on social media.

Dobromirov suggested the government's strategy was to "bury the public under a huge amount of information and documents." He described this as providing an "eight-ton truck full of paper, 23,000 documents, 300,000 pages" with the intention that those seeking answers would get lost in the sheer volume. However, he noted that this approach inadvertently led to the release of sensitive information. He found a particular email exchange symptomatic, detailing how President Vučić allegedly expedited the work and offered to pay Chinese contractors 64 million euros more to finish earlier, suggesting the acceleration was for political campaign purposes rather than quality or scope.