The 'Petrohan' Case: Former Environment Minister Borislav Sandov Says No Charges Filed against Him Regarding the Agreement with the NGO of Those Found Dead In Suspected Murder-Suicides

Former Environment Minister, Borislav Sandov, has stated that no charges have been filed against him regarding the agreement signed with the NGO linked to the Petrohan case (in which a 15-year-old was among the six victims). He made the remarks during an interview on BNT’s morning programme "The Day Begins' on February 12, one day after the acting head of the State Agency for National Security (SANS) announced an active criminal investigation involving public officials and a senior official in connection with to the NGO associated with Ivaylo Kalushev.

Sandov noted that he visited the former Petrohan hut three times between 2022 and 2024. “I have not been charged, and it would be absurd if there were attempts to implicate me,” he said. Regarding any prior investigations, he added: “In the summer of 2022, I provided explanations to SANS concerning the framework partnership agreement.”

Sandov claimed that the case is being politicised.

“I see the focus shifting away from the purely criminal aspect. From the beginning, there’s been an attempt to politicise the topic. It wouldn’t surprise me if they try to attack me in the same way. I do not understand the intensity of the attacks from various public figures, including party leaders, MPs, and even members of the government. This includes Slavi Trifonov (leader of 'There Is Such a People'), who made completely false claims. The case is being shifted into political debate, especially given upcoming elections and the formation of a caretaker government.”

The former minister rejected claims by outgoing Environment Minister, Manol Genov, that the agreement with the NGO was illegal.

“It is not illegal. The Law on Environment and the Constitution provide for encouraging civil society and finding ways to collaborate with executive authorities. The agreement is not a permit or contract. It is essentially a public statement of intent to cooperate on environmental protection. It does not confer legal powers, impose obligations, or usurp state functions, though other institutions sometimes do this.”

'Petrohan' Case Involving the Deaths of Six People: Outgoing Environment Minister Manol Genov Says during One Visit to the Ministry, the NGO Representatives Were Armed

Sandov explained that the agreement formalised mutual cooperation between the Ministry of Environment and Water (MOEW) and the NGO, including support for monitoring, awareness-raising, technical and expert assistance, and training.

“In practice, it does not create explicit rights,” he said.

He added that all inspections in the NGO 'National Agency for Protected Areas' found no irregularities.

“All inspections carried out, including those at the Ministry of Environment and Water, concluded that it did not break the law and did not undertake activities that are inherently the responsibility of the state.”
Institutions alone are not sufficient for the goal of environmental protection.

The former Environment Minister denied knowing representatives of the NGO before the agreement was signed or receiving any recommendations about them. “Mr Genov’s claims that the NGO operated outside the administration are not true. It did not require any approval procedures,” Sandov said.

He also responded to Genov’s statement that NGO representatives had entered the ministry armed. Manol Genov had claimed that Petrohan NGO members had brought weapons into the Environment Ministry. Sandov rejected this: “That is impossible. It is prohibited, and it certainly did not happen.”

Sandov admitted visiting the hut several times and having tea on the veranda with Ivaylo Kalushev but stressed that they “did not have a friendly relationship.”

“Once, in 2022, I visited the hut to make sure no fictitious work was being carried out and that they actually had the equipment shown to me in photos, and that the base was in a condition where they could live there and carry out these activities. I saw equipment related to diving — multiple oxygen tanks, and a high-mobility jeep,” he explained.

Sandov denied seeing any children at the hut.

“I also visited the hut two more times, briefly, on family day trips during the hottest days of the year, when we were trying to escape the heat, and again only for a short time.”

BNT: “Was this a holiday visit?”

Sandov: “Once in the summer of 2023 and once in 2024, on the hottest days. If you check, you’ll see the exact dates.”

BNT: “But you had access to the place when others did not. How did you arrange accommodation?”

Sandov: “No, no, wait. There was no overnight stay. I called ahead to say I was coming and was happy to meet for tea. There was no obstruction to accessing the place, but that reflects our casual acquaintance. We did not have any close or friendly relationship. We were not colleagues and did not participate in the same organisation.

"The only joint action we ever had was with many other public figures in Bulgaria, when the Movement for Rigths and Freedoms (MRF) party — at that time ‘MRF -New Beginning’ did not yet exist — tried to push through an amendment to the Forest Law. We initiated a large appeal, and they joined. I should also note that I had seen Ivaylo Ivanov, one of the victims — I should start again by expressing my condolences. The way people are being vilified, especially relatives and those close to them, is disgraceful, particularly when it comes from public authorities whose mandates have expired.”

According to Sandov, either a representative of the organisation or the entire NGO cooperated with the State Agency for National Security (SANS).

“The NGO itself has no recorded irregularities.”

BNT: “And what about the people?”

“They also all have clean criminal records. What became clear yesterday is that one or two of them — or possibly the entire organisation — cooperated with SANS. If they were investigated, it would be recorded in an open session. If the outgoing SANS director said the session should be closed, and then MPs said he did not respond in the closed session, that only means one thing. Otherwise, the conflicting accounts presented by law enforcement shock the public and only reinforce the low level of trust in these institutions.”

Sandov emphasised that he did not maintain close relations with the NGO.

“I repeat: we communicated only sporadically when necessary. Last year, we didn’t even speak.”

He stressed that he observed nothing suspicious in the NGO’s behaviour.

“There was nothing alarming. But regarding sectarianism, paramilitary activity, or that ‘p-word’ I don’t even want to mention on national TV — there was no indication. I once saw one of the victims there, the boy who resembles the one in the videos that were released. I even thought he was Ivaylo Kalushev’s son. We did not communicate beyond that. We had tea on the veranda and discussed general political issues, or matters related to the forest and biodiversity. We talked about the possibility of declaring a new protected area there. These were the topics we covered. I truly believe these people worked in that direction. I cannot comprehend all the false accusations being made against them. Some have not even been buried yet, and so much filth has been poured over them, despite police testimony about how they helped each other and rescued people. I feel disgusted, including personally, because my name has been misused to shift institutional irresponsibility or hide something, and unfairly attach political responsibility to me during that period.”

Sandov explained that there had been a report of illegal logging in the remote area.

“A report was submitted in front of me. In this case, I reported it to them because I saw a truck loaded with wood on the way up. I submitted a report, and they did as well. I also know from representatives of RIOSV Montana that they submitted reports and violations were confirmed based on those reports.”

The former minister denied that the state had funded the NGO.

“Not a single stotinka came from the ministry or the state budget. That is why I said at the start — I don’t see why any charges could be brought against me by law enforcement for this type of agreement. Moreover, two months later I publicly clarified to the organisation and to the public that the agreement does not create additional rights or remove any state functions.”

During the interview, outgoing Minister of Environment, Manol Genov, joined remotely, claiming:

“I want to point out that the source was not one woman but two. And they were in the presence of this gentleman at the ministry. How can Mr Sandov say it was forbidden or not? In all my years, I have not seen a sign at the MOEW entrance prohibiting entry with weapons.”

Sandov responded: “I don’t see how Genov’s intervention helps. Whether one or two women said it, let them testify where appropriate. Again, I emphasize that a National Security Service representative is always present in front of the minister’s office. Check their rules to see if anyone could be allowed in with a weapon. But this is categorically untrue. I truly cannot understand. I don’t know who these two women are, whom he trusts so much. But it is certain that no one entered my office armed.”