The Constitutional Court has again not made a decision today on the Balluku case. For several weeks, Prime Minister Edi Rama's request to annul the SPAK decision against Ms. Balluku continues to remain unanswered by the eight members of this court, who have also held an open session where the parties presented their arguments.
It is difficult to understand what still remains to be clarified by the eight judges of the Constitutional Court, while the issue – one of the sharpest and most delicate of the last 30 years – has the maximum attention of public opinion.
Precisely for this reason, it would be in the honor of this court to express itself with a decision without dragging itself between the scenes of politics and rumors, inevitable due to the political burden that the case in question carries.
VNA has closely followed both the open session at the Constitutional Court and the preliminary decision to consider the Prime Minister's request, where the divisions among the judges provided, in a way, a picture of what their approach might be going forward.
However, without prejudging the final decision, what is worth noting is that delays on the one hand and the Prime Minister's occasional pressure on the other do not contribute to a cool and impartial adjudication of the case.
Today, among two other cases that were to be considered in the deliberation room, the constitutional judges again postponed the handling of the Balluku case. VNA noted that one of the members of the court, Gent Ibrahimi, has left the meeting. The reasons are not yet known, just as it is not known whether his departure occurred during the consideration of the Balluku case.
Half of the constitutional deadline within which the Constitutional Court must issue a decision on this issue has already passed. In anticipation of it, the highest court in the country is appearing neither clear nor confident in the stance that is awaited with great interest by politicians, internationals, and public opinion in Albania.
Delaying the trial is not a method to escape political pressure or the need to calmly discuss a matter with constitutional and professional weight. No one can deny that the issue is not simple in technical terms. Also, political pressure and the political games of the majority increase the perception that the Constitutional Court is part of the political game.
In such a situation, the Constitutional Court should do something very simple to save its reputation, neutrality in handling the case, and professionalism (if it has any): decide to revoke the interim suspension decision and take the appropriate time for discussion. This would save it from the political game in which it has, intentionally or unintentionally, been involved.
Therefore, either the decision should be issued urgently, or the suspension measure should be revoked and the judges given adequate time for review.
Edi Rama rushed to take the suspension measure and the Constitutional Court granted it. Now she must regain the trust quotas. And this seems to be the only way to regain it.
