web counter
LEXO PA REKLAMA!

SHKARKO APP

App Store
Google Play

E fundit!

x

Pressure on the KLP/ When the defendant tests the state's boundaries

2026-05-13 09:13:00, Aktualitet CNA

Pressure on the KLP/ When the defendant tests the state's boundaries

The latest letter from the defendant lawyer in the GJKKO, the lawyer accused by SPAK who also acts as Erion Veliaj's lawyer, Plarent Ndreca, addressed to the members of the High Prosecutorial Council is not a request for information.

It is an open attempt at institutional pressure, built with an old technique of procedural manipulation: first a controversial legal thesis is declared as accomplished, then the institution is only asked to affirm whether or not it was aware of it.

In this letter, the lawyer for Erion Veliaj, the defendant in the GJKKO and accused by SPAK, Plarent Ndreca, does not ask whether or not there is a collegial decision-making of the KLP. He does not seek clarification on the procedure followed. He does not seek institutional interpretation. He gives his own conclusion.

The letter of Vice President Erind Gërmenji is treated as a "personal act", is provisionally declared "null", and is also attributed the most serious possible consequence: "removal of competence" of the constitutional collegial body.

Pressure on the KLP/ When the defendant tests the state's boundaries

Pressure on the KLP/ When the defendant tests the state's boundaries

Pressure on the KLP/ When the defendant tests the state's boundaries

And after constructing this entire narrative as a fait accompli, he asks the members of the KLP the question: were you aware?

This is not a search for information. This is a deliberate formulation that aims to preemptively close any legal debate.

It's a question constructed to leave no room for the essential answer: "Your premise is wrong."

So, we are not dealing with a defendant who questions the institution to get an answer, but with a defendant who attempts to impose the framework of the answer on the institution.

If the members answer “yes”, they legitimize his thesis. If they answer “no”, they seem to have been uninformed about a serious claim. While the only legally serious alternative, the overthrow of the artificially raised premise, is attempted to be excluded by the very formulation of the question.

This is "brick" pressure on a constitutional body

No one addresses an independent institution with formulations that provide the answer themselves and leave it only to seal it.

When a party in the process attempts to dictate to the KLP not only what to examine, but also how it should legally understand the issue, we no longer have legal protection. We have an attempt at institutional direction.

And when this is done at the height of a criminal trial where the real objective is to delegitimize the investigating prosecutor, then we have something even more serious: a pure pressure strategy against justice institutions, packaged as a "request for information".

On the other hand, the problem is not just the language used by the defendant. The real problem is the institutional climate that makes such language possible.

When a defendant, through his also-defendant lawyer, addresses a constitutional body in tones that not only demand accountability, but also predetermine the response, this shows that the perception has been created that institutions can be put under pressure, can be guided, can be tested to what extent they resist.

A strong institution does not even allow this perception to be created.

The very fact that someone dares to write to the KLP in this form, presenting legal conclusions as proven and placing members before a manipulated question, is indicative of a prior conviction that the institutional terrain is perceived as permeable.

And when this is combined with the endless delays in the criminal process, the picture becomes even more worrying, because the idea of ??a dual strategy is created: on the one hand, procedural postponement and fragmentation of the criminal process, to consume time, energy and public attention; on the other hand, a parallel institutional bombardment with requests, lawsuits, complaints and pressure narratives, with the aim of delegitimizing the links that have made unpleasant decisions.

This is the classic mechanism of institutional consumption. The defendant does not directly attack the criminal decision on its merits, but creates a procedural fog around everything, until the institution itself tires of justifying itself.

And here arises the most serious question about the rule of law: Do we have institutions that impose their authority on the parties, or parties that test the limits of institutional authority every day?

When a defendant manages to shift the debate from the charges against him to the personal legitimacy of the prosecutor, to the procedures of the Criminal Procedure Code, to lateral interpretations, to endless administrative battles, then the criminal process risks losing its axis.

Justice begins to revolve around the defendant, instead of the defendant responding to justice. And this is the clearest sign of institutional weakness./ CNA





Lajmet e fundit nga