E fundit!

22:51 TODAY

Businessman Artur Shehu breaks his silence: I am a long-time land owner in Zvërnec, I don't know the investors at all

Albanian businessman Artur Shehu spoke on the Opinion show...

Immunity is protection from abuse, but it does not protect the abuser.

2025-12-16 16:46:00, Opinione Ylli Manjani

Beyond the petty village vendettas, the games they play with anyone who dares to complain about the "miracles" they perform, SPAK is now clear that it HAS VIOLATED the Constitution with the suspension from office.

They even wanted to commit the violation with a cobra in their belt!!! (And you told me that the coup is a little serious because there were no weapons...)
SPAk is demanding Belinda's immunity, of course it has the formal right to do so. But it cannot suspend a member of the government.

I think this is clear, right?

I'm glad they learned this lesson.

Other lessons, such as how there should be no proceedings without a criminal fact; how security measures are taken in proportion to the need and risks; how evidence is obtained legally; how charges cannot be brought without logic; and others like these must be learned on a case-by-case basis.

But first, SPAK must be freed from the adrenaline of vengeful, angry reactions and petty village games.

Now, regarding the parliamentary debate on whether or not to lift immunity, I insist on my conviction, which I have regularly expressed in the case of Saimir Tahiri and in the cases of Ahmetaj and Berisha.
Immunity can only be requested if the court has previously ordered a security measure.

Immunity is not granted in advance by requests in the air, but only in response to a judicial act that requires permission to be implemented.

Immunity is not granted to prosecutors, but to allow or not to enforce the measures taken by the court.
As long as the court does not have an act, which means it has not previously reviewed the evidence and proportionality, the prosecution's request is abusive.

Faced with abusive demands from prosecutors, Parliament is forced to act as a court, that is, to demand evidence, which is not normal and in its nature. In a republic of separated powers, only the court, not parliament, examines and evaluates evidence.

The decision to lift immunity is of a political, not legal, nature. Therefore, there is no point in debating the substance of a legal claim, the fairness and soundness of which has not been previously confirmed by the court in accordance with the law.

In short, the current practice where the prosecution requests immunity, to then do whatever it wants on the one hand, and on the other hand, Parliament acts as the court and decides according to political moods, is not normal.

It should have been normal for the prosecutor to present the court's decision to parliament along with the request to allow the execution of the decision.

I recall that in the Balluku case, the court had security measures in place. So it assessed that those measures were proportional, what changed, except that the Constitutional Court extended the shifts?!

So the debate about immunity also has a constitutional meaning because the idea is to protect the political power that stems from the vote from the abuse of justice and the law.

My belief is that immunity does not protect the person, but the relationship between powers from abuse, resentment, and revenge.