"Balluku" case/ Lala shares details about the hearing: Prosecutors had a message for the Constitutional Court

2026-01-22 21:28:00, Aktualitet CNA

"Balluku" case/ Lala shares details about the hearing: Prosecutors had

Journalist Klodiana Lala spoke this evening regarding the session held today at the Constitutional Court to review Prime Minister Edi Rama's appeal regarding the measures imposed on Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku.

Invited to the show "Të Paekspozuarit" with Ylli Rakipi, Lala shared details about what had happened in the session, which was attended by all parties involved, with the exception of the GJKKO, which did not appear, arguing that in a democratic country the court cannot be summoned as a party to the proceedings.

According to the journalist, the prosecutors in the session also had a message for the Constitutional Court, as they said that through its decisions, the "Constitution" has legitimized the actions of lower-level courts and prosecutors' offices to be independent, but the intervention at this moment violates the independence of the prosecutor's office.

"The public hearing implies the fact that all interested parties are involved. In this specific case, the Constitutional Court of Kosovo was also invited as a party to this process, but it did not appear and, through a letter addressed to the Constitutional Court (CC), claimed that in a democratic country the court cannot be invited as a party to the process.

The other parties, on one side, were the President, the Parliament and the Council of Ministers, who in unison claimed that by suspending Belinda Balluku's functions, SPAK had interfered with their powers, since she is not suspended, as long as the law and the Constitution equate her function with that of a deputy, therefore she cannot be suspended from her functions. The second argument is related to the blockage of government work. The representative of the Council of Ministers said that the suspension of a member creates problems and a gap in the work of the government.

Mr. Rusmali, representing the Presidency, hypothetically raised the possibility that if the provision is not implemented, a judge or prosecutor could suspend not just one member but several members, which could affect governance, and he considered it interference in the President's affairs.

Meanwhile, SPAK, in my opinion, failed to reach the constitutional level, but stopped at three points. To one of Ms. Semini's questions, how much the interim decision has affected, the prosecutors claimed that Balluk's return to duty has affected the investigation, as she has attempted to destroy evidence. This is how they motivated their entire request.

It was said that the measure was taken in the interest of public opinion, as Balluku could destroy evidence, commit acts of this nature or even more serious. They stopped at two points, that the prime minister cannot be legitimized for this search, since there is no institutional conflict, they claimed that only they as an institution can request security measures and Mr. Rama is not directly affected as prime minister. The second point, the prosecutors alluded that the prime minister, by setting the Constitutional Court in motion, is blocking the investigation into the deputy prime minister.

The prosecutors also had a message for the Constitutional Court, as they said that through its decisions, the Constitutional Court has legitimized the actions of lower courts and prosecutors' offices to be independent, but the intervention at this moment violates the independence of the prosecutor's office.

"An interesting question was from Marsida Xhaferllari, who referred to a statement by the prime minister, about the republic of prosecutors, the prosecutors were not clear about the answer they would have to give, but they said that the specific case does not create a conflict between competencies and claimed that due to the needs of the investigation and due to the way Balluku was investigated, they have implemented everything rigorously ," said Lala. /CNA