Prime Minister Edi Rama's warning about legal changes that will enable the protection of his cabinet from suspension from office is viewed with concern by civil society for the effect they will have on the fight against corruption and the European integration process.
Prime Minister Edi Rama moved from words to deeds in relation to justice on Monday, when he warned of a legal offensive to prevent the Prosecution Office and the Special Court from taking the measure of suspension from duty for his cabinet ministers and other senior officials.
Rama's public statements came in response to a decision by the Constitutional Court, which upheld the suspension from office of the government's number 2, Belinda Balluku, rejecting Rama's claim that this constituted a violation of the prime ministerial powers.
"The non-delegable constitutional functions, from that of a member of the government to that of the President of the Republic and beyond, can never be suspended by anyone based on a specific name, because suspension paralyzes the function, that is, the institution that he/she leads," Rama wrote on Platform X, justifying this with the need to guarantee the independence of the legislative and executive branches.
But his warnings were read by the opposition and civil society as open pressure on justice and a retreat from the narrative of the anti-corruption war, and consequently, as a risk to the progress of the European integration process.
The chairman of the DP parliamentary group, Gazment Bardhi, declared that this was "organized pressure against justice."
"When the Government and the Parliament join forces to strike down the decision of two courts regarding an active criminal investigation, we have two powers trying to influence the third. This is not a separation of powers," said Bardhi in public reaction to the prime minister's statements.
Even for civil society organizations, this is a critical moment for the independence of the judiciary and a change in the political course of the majority, which, if it becomes a reality, will hinder their work by granting ministers and officials additional immunity before the law.
“The prime minister’s stance is an act against the anti-corruption rhetoric and the standards that Albania must meet to achieve the goal of EU membership,” said Afrim Krasniqi, head of the Institute for Political Studies, an organization that monitors the work of the Assembly.
Krasniqi also views with concern the disregard for the Constitution and the decision-making of the Constitutional Court as a violation of democratic standards.
This, according to him, "shows that Albania risks deviating into a country where the Constitution and institutions have no value and where political leaders and successive majorities can interpret it according to their political goals."
Krasniqi adds that the initiative announced by the prime minister gives his ministers a power and immunity that they do not have, nor is recognized by the Constitution or the practice of European Union countries.
"It also hinders SPAK's investigations, refusing to lift immunity, and creates a deep gap between the executive and the majority on the one hand and the judiciary on the other," he adds.
Even for Erida Skëndaj, head of the Albanian Helsinki Committee, the prime minister's initiative is related to his personal interests and violates the fundamental principles of the rule of law.
"All the delays that have been created by the non-execution of the GJKKO decision, the unprecedented postponement of the Assembly's decision-making process for the request for authorization from SPAK to restrict the freedom of the Deputy Prime Minister, and now the Prime Minister's position to change the legislation so that there are no prohibitive measures of suspension of the execution of the function (for some of them), constitute a position that prevents the justice system from conducting an effective, complete and comprehensive investigation into the official in question," said Skëndaj.
According to Skëndaj, Rama is aiming for constitutional changes, although he added that: "The Constitution cannot be changed in the interest of one or the other party that has the governing majority, but only in the interest of the public, in accordance with the fundamental principles of the rule of law and with a comprehensive debate."
Referring to the 4-4 split of the positions of the judicial body in the Constitutional Court regarding the conflict of competence, Skëndaj said that this "makes this issue debatable among professionals."
"In my assessment, the Albanian constitutional legislator must choose between the need to have such a suspensive measure in the Constitution or not. In the conditions of Albania, this measure constitutes in principle a necessary restriction and proportional to the need that dictates it, which is the fight against corruption, which is very worrying in our country, as well as equality before the law," said Skëndaj.
Meanwhile, for Krasniqi, there is no legal ambiguity in this regard, as Albanian legislation allows for the suspension or dismissal of both the President and the Prime Minister in cases where they result in problems with decriminalization, related to irregular or incomplete declarations, while for flagrant cases of corruption, abuse and misuse of office and the public budget, the investigation is rejected a priori.
According to him, the majority's goals are driven by personal interests and conflict with democratic standards.
"In EU countries, there have been prime ministers and senior officials under investigation, and in each case, resignations have been granted or the investigation has been enabled without the obstacle of immunity," said Krasniqi.
"If the opposite happens to us... we lose even the formal concept of democracy, we turn into a regime and set an example of what democracy and the rule of law should not be," he concluded. /BIRN/
