VIDEO Ivošević prozvao Šutu i pozvao USKOK. Šuta: Sve što je iznio su laži

GRADSKI vijećnik Bojan Ivošević danas je na konferenciji za novinare optužio splitskog gradonačelnika Tomislava Šutu za netransparentno trošenje javnog novca i pogodovanje krugu tvrtki povezanih s Antonijem Nikolićem.
Paralele sa slučajem Fimi Media
Ivošević tvrdi da mu Grad već devet dana ne dostavlja račune i dokumentaciju o troškovima gradskih događanja te poziva DORH i USKOK da provjere poslovanje tvrtki koje su, prema njegovim saznanjima, povezane sa Šutinom političkom kampanjom.
"Svi znate što je bio slučaj Fimi Media. To je da su se fingirale usluge PR-a jednoj privatnoj tvrtki i financirale privatne kampanje HDZ-a na nacionalnoj razini.
Nisam mogao vjerovati da će se to ponoviti, ali Tomislav Šuta to ponavlja na lokalnoj razini. To je mladi momak, Antonio Nikolić. Nije službenik, nije zaposlenik, nije ni na ugovoru o djelu, apsolutno nema nikakve veze s Gradom Splitom. To mi Šuta pravda kroz navodni angažman s HDZ-om koji je ispod svake tržišne cijene", rekao je Ivošević.
Mreža tvrtki i sporni računi
Vijećnik tvrdi da, prema njegovim saznanjima, Antonio Nikolić, njegove tvrtke te s njima povezani poslovni partneri imaju ugovore za promidžbu i druge usluge u gotovo osam gradova i općina na području Splitsko-dalmatinske županije. Pritom tvrdi da su pojedine od tih usluga preplaćene te da se tako pogoduje poslovnom krugu koji, prema njegovim navodima, pruža usluge HDZ-u.
"Znači, jedan video - narudžbenica 12.000 eura. Sad uzmite u obzir da je na Svetog Duju potrošeno oko milijun eura. Uzmite u obzir da je Šuta na sastanku s ugostiteljima nedavno najavio da će potrošiti dva milijuna eura na Advent. Koliki je prostor tu za uzeti zub, za postotak Nikolića i ekipe koja radi s Tomislavom Šutom? Kad pitam: kako ste vi nabavili ovaj digitalni panel na godišnjici mandata Tomislava Šute? Jer nijedan službenik, nijedan zaposlenik Grada, ni gradonačelnik nije rekao: ‘Ovo ima ta firma, poslat ćemo, dostavite nam ponudu.’ I oni su nam poslali: ‘Dostavite ponudu.’ Ponuda sama dođe i pročelnica je potpiše", govori Ivošević.
Poziv DORH-u i USKOK-u
Tvrdi kako već devet dana ne može doći do traženih dokumenata. "Zato pozivam DORH i USKOK da na vrijeme provjere situaciju, prije nego što se aktivira previše našeg novca, kako više ne bismo gledali momke od 20 godina koji nakon samo godinu dana poslovanja s Gradom Splitom upadaju u nove BMW-ove.
Dok se naša mladost trudi zaraditi za svoj kruh i pronaći posao, pripadnici određene zlatne mladeži briljiraju u Gradu Splitu."
Šuta: To su neistine i laži, po njegovom običaju
Na optužbe je odgovorio prozvani gradonačelnik Tomislav Šuta.
"Sve što je izneseno su neistine i laži, po njegovom običaju, bez ikakvih dokaza i s lažnim optužbama. Na vaše pitanje, odgovor je da dotični nije imao nikakav ugovorni odnos s Gradom Splitom. Što se tiče kompletne situacije i tog lažnog iznošenja svih tih informacija koje stavlja u javni prostor, ja ću kao gradonačelnik napraviti sljedeće: za razdoblje od lipnja 2021. godine do danas izvući ćemo sve račune po svim gradskim firmama, gradskim ustanovama i za sam Grad Split. Utvrdit ćemo koliko je potrošeno na produkciju, koliko na snimanja, koje su bile cijene te koje su PR agencije bile angažirane. Ali samo jedan primjer: Žnjan, koji se stavljao u funkciju i kada se sve skupa išlo na brzinu kako bi se stvari dogodile pred izbore, potrošeno je 350 tisuća eura. Tu su uključene PR usluge, snimanja, produkcije, sve", rekao je gradonačelnik Šuta.
Na pitanje novinara koje tvrtke Grad Split najčešće angažira za poslove PR-a, marketinga i slične usluge, gradonačelnik je odgovorio da osobno ne sudjeluje u njihovu odabiru niti angažiranju. "Za sve što se angažira, ja osobno ni u čemu ne sudjelujem. Dakle, ako se nešto angažira, postoji procedura i znaju se iznosi, kako i na koji način se nešto ugovara. U slučaju narudžbenice, uvijek postoje firme koje su i prije radile, možda i neke koje imaju i nove, ali u svakom slučaju sve informacije koje tražite ćete dobiti. Napravit će se usporedba svih firmi koje su do sada sudjelovale, za koje se govori potencijalno da su tu", kazao je Šuta.

Facts Only

* Bojan Ivošević, a city councilor, accused Tomislav Šuta, the mayor, of non-transparent spending of public money and favoring companies connected to Antonio Nikolić.
* Ivošević claimed the city has not provided requested receipts and documentation for public event costs for nine days.
* Ivošević called upon DORH and USKOK to investigate the operations of companies allegedly linked to Šuta's political campaign.
* Ivošević referenced the Fimi Media case as a parallel concerning services being channeled through private entities for political financing.
* Ivošević alleged that Antonio Nikolić and his associates have contracts for promotion and other services in nearly eight municipalities in the Split-Dalmatia County.
* Ivošević asserted that some of these services were overpaid, allegedly benefiting a business network serving the HDZ party.
* Ivošević questioned how a digital panel was obtained without any city official explicitly requesting it.
* Šuta denied any contractual relationship with the City of Split regarding the accusations.
* Šuta stated that all engagements follow established procedures and offered to release all financial records for city firms and PR agencies from July 2021 onward for review.
* Šuta claimed personal involvement in selecting companies is absent, asserting that all contracts have documented procedures.

Executive Summary

A city councilor accused the mayor of using public funds for undisclosed contracts linked to a network of companies associated with Antonio Nikolić. The councilor alleged that the city government has not provided requested financial documentation for public events for nine days and called for investigation by the Public Attorney's Office (DORH) and the State Inspectorate (USKOK). The accuser referenced a parallel case involving Fimi Media to suggest a pattern of using shell entities for political financing. The councilor claimed that Antonio Nikolić and his associated entities have contracts for various services across nearly eight municipalities in the Split-Dalmatia County, alleging overbilling and favoritism toward the HDZ political group. When questioned about specific expenditures, such as a €12,000 invoice and expenditures related to the Advent season, the councilor suggested that procurement processes lacked transparency, citing instances where contracts were awarded without direct involvement from city officials or employees. The mayor responded by denying any contractual relationship with the city and stated that all transactions follow established procedures, offering to release financial records for all city entities and PR agencies for review.

Full Take

The interaction between the accuser's specific allegations regarding procurement transparency and the respondent's defense focusing on procedural adherence reveals a structural tension common in public administration disputes: the conflict between perceived political favoritism and documented bureaucratic process. The narrative shifts from an accusation of illicit financial dealings to a dispute over the legitimacy of established protocols, using high-level institutional calls (DORH, USKOK) as leverage against perceived local impropriety. The reference drawn to the Fimi Media case serves to establish a pre-existing context of distrust regarding how private entities interface with public political financing—a pattern that frames current allegations not as isolated incidents but as part of an ongoing systemic concern about opaque dealings. Šuta's response, while offering to release data, attempts to reframe the dispute from a moral failing (corruption) to a procedural verification exercise. This dynamic suggests that asserting control over information and process—even when facing allegations against one's own administration—is central to managing public trust in governance. The pattern observed is an attempt to manage accountability by controlling the narrative focus, steering attention toward documentation availability rather than directly addressing the substance of the alleged nexus between private contracts and political alignment.

Sentinel — Human

Confidence

The text reads like a direct report of a public confrontation between political figures concerning alleged misuse of public funds and private contracts, exhibiting the rhetorical tension typical of human-driven conflict reporting.

Signals Detected

Moderate sentence length variance; rhetorical pacing suggests human structuring rather than uniform machine rhythm.

Presence of strong, highly emotive argumentative framing (e.g., accusation/defense) characteristic of direct journalistic confrontation, despite complex narrative.

The flow shifts between presenting allegations (Ivošević's side) and counter-claims (Šuta's response), indicating structured dialogue rather than a monolithic AI synthesis.

Specific, dense details concerning monetary amounts, named individuals (Nikolić, Šuta), and specific legal bodies (DORH, USKOK) suggest grounded reporting, even if the framing is adversarial.

Human Indicators

The direct, confrontational structure between two named parties arguing over documented/alleged financial flows strongly implies a human source or reporter driving the narrative.

The use of specific, slightly anecdotal examples (e.g., 12.000 eura order, BMWs for young people) provides texture often found in human investigative reporting.