The Democratic Party's report to the Parliament requesting authorization for the arrest of Belinda Balluku is published. The report states that SPAK confirmed before the Council for Regulation, Mandates and Immunity that Balluku threatened witnesses and destroyed evidence. While the institutions subordinate to the former Minister of Infrastructure delayed, specifically the ARRSH delayed sending the evidence.
According to the DP, Balluk's arrest is necessary, as otherwise the investigation will be jeopardized.
"During the Council meeting on 23.02.2026, prosecutors further clarified this circumstance, emphasizing that MP Belinda Balluku has tried to exert pressure on witnesses, through two forms: Through "strongmen", for whom the prosecution stated that it is being verified whether they are involved in organized crime activities, a verification that is covered by investigative secrecy; through public officials, part of the minister's cabinet, who have either blackmailed family members to get fired from their jobs, or have offered money in exchange for changing their testimonies and lawyer," the report states.
The opposition report quotes Prosecutor Dritan Prenci, who, among other things, stated that: "we have presented the transcript of the wiretapping of conversations, permitted by court decision, dated 20.11.2025, at 12:23:35. We have presented it as evidence. The content of this transcription results in data on the intimidation of persons.... It contains that the lady is afraid, she also mentions the names of who she is afraid of, the name of the official, but also strong people in other groups. She mentions the temptation through corruption to change her statements or even replace her defense attorney with a defense attorney liked by the persons who offered themselves to her."
“Prosecutor Dritan Prenci - Then, in the content of what this transcript of the intercepted conversations has produced, it is about intimidation by unofficial persons. It mentions “strong”, the lady herself mentions it, i.e. unofficial persons. Then, by official persons it is about persons from the minister's cabinet, it is written. “18. “Prosecutor Dritan Prenci - We cannot declare more, because, as I said, I tell you with full responsibility that the investigations have continued at maximum intensity also in terms of clarifying each circumstance or data created, even in terms of what we are discussing. So, due to the preservation of investigative secrecy, of what we have continued after the moment of submitting the request to you, we cannot expose parts of the investigation, since the investigation is still secret, we have no open actions” – the report further states.
--------
Dritan Prenci - We are at the beginning of the investigations of other procedures and there are still many investigative actions to be carried out for many procurement procedures, or even written evidence to be administered, which has not been administered. We have had shortcomings from the Albanian Road Authority, because it did not bring them to us on time, they were delayed and we have not yet administered all the relevant documentation of these procurement procedures.
Klodjan Braho - What is the mechanism? The mechanism is meeting subordinates. People he may have appointed, people we suspect he may have controlled according to the investigation, and we suspect that this activity may occur in the future, as we have a concrete conversation that creates serious suspicions that it has occurred. Given that this is a possibility, that you may not even be in office, but you have somewhere another person who has power over the witness, who is the director of the witness, for example. Having the opportunity to meet with people, which the current measures allow, increases the risk of poisoning the evidence, both for the witnesses and for the co-defendants, because the co-defendant may also repent tomorrow or may cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, we are in favor of these types of security measures, which prohibit the person under investigation from having contact with other people, and are therefore the most proportionate measures possible compared to others, as there is no other measure that satisfies this security need.
Dorina Bejko - In the following, we have administered some of the documentary practices, but not all of the documentary practices that belong to these procedures under investigation.
Klodjan Braho - The request clearly states the reason why we came to the Assembly today. The existing security measures have been set for two procedures, for two episodes. After the measure was set, facts were discovered that occurred before its setting, which show suspicions for 6 other procedures, with repetition of the same way of acting and with the same collaborators. These facts have been attributed to the person under investigation. In addition to these, we explained that there are also other procedures that are the subject of investigation, but that have not yet had a decision made, which has been attributed to the person under investigation.
To support its request, the Special Prosecution Office has filed a total of 80 pieces of evidence, divided into 12 volumes.
Klodjan Braho - It's just a hard disk in practical terms, which if you printed it out, without exaggeration could be two or three vans full of papers, but it's in electronic form."
Based on the prosecution's request, the DP says in the report that Balluku, with "her position as a majority MP, former Deputy Prime Minister and former minister, close ties to a considerable number of current ministers in office or senior public administration officials (general directors promoted to positions by her), is a clear indicator of her connections and ability to influence the quality of evidence in criminal proceedings."
The document also provides the prosecution's evidence that Balluku pressured witnesses, not just Mirzeta Kashnica, who was previously declared. The DP says that the prosecutors emphasized the fact that the pressure was through two forms: "(1) Through "strongmen", for whom the prosecution stated that it is verifying whether they are involved in organized crime activities, a verification that is covered by investigative secrecy; (2) through public officials, part of the minister's cabinet, who either blackmailed family members to get them fired, or offered money in exchange for changing their testimonies and lawyer."
Dritan Prenci - In the report and supporting evidence of the report, we have presented the transcript of the wiretapping of conversations, allowed by court decision, dated 20.11.2025, at 12:23:35. We have presented it as evidence. The content of this transcript results in data on the intimidation of persons.... There is content that the lady is afraid, she also mentions the names of who she is afraid of, the name of the official, but also strong people in other groups. She mentions the temptation through corruption to change her statements or even replace her defender with a defender liked by the persons who offer themselves to her. This is very clear in the content"
Dritan Prenci - Then, in the content of what this transcript of the intercepted conversations has produced, it is about intimidation by unofficial persons. It mentions "strong", the lady herself mentions it, so unofficial persons. Then, by official persons, it is about persons from the minister's cabinet, it is written.
Prosecutors say that due to investigative secrecy they cannot state more, but they guarantee that the investigations have continued at maximum intensity both in terms of clarifying each circumstance and in terms of the threat.
Klodian Braho: Of course, it is not proven beyond any doubt, but it meets the standard of reasonable doubt, that the witnesses and defendants, who tomorrow may also be collaborators of justice, are not known, are being sought to be influenced by pressure, seduction, or other means. So, referring only to the content of the telephone conversation."20
Dritan Prenci - We have a wiretapped conversation between a person who is a defendant together with the defendant Minister Belinda Balluku, and another person who is talking to him who is again an interactive person. She will be questioned with the status of a witness, so she has not been questioned until now.
Klodjan Braho - In order to determine the security measure or to request the replacement of the security measure, it is not necessarily necessary to prove that damage has been caused, but it is simply enough to argue the risk that damage may be caused. Today, as we speak, taking into account the conversation that the colleague mentioned, which is a case and a concrete piece of information, we create a kind of suspicion that there is a risk that the evidence has been damaged. So, I think that we remain in exactly the same situation that this risk is still real for us and continues. This is an element of the security measure, while the other element of the security needs is not only related to the element of damage to evidence, but also related to the risk that the person may commit the same criminal offense as the one suspected of having committed or even more serious. Today, this second risk also exists. The decision of the Constitutional Court is mentioned, but this decision has not yet been published and has not yet entered into force. It is a certain fact that it will happen, but it is equally certain that the Assembly has a legal initiative to amend Article 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
