A question and a problem: IS THE PRIME MINISTER OF ALBANIA LYING OR DID THEM LYING TO US?!

2026-04-23 11:38:00, Opinione Luan Rama

A question and a problem: IS THE PRIME MINISTER OF ALBANIA LYING OR DID THEM

Besides being completely inappropriate, I also found the insistence (let's call it naive in the most positive sense of the word) of the Prime Minister of Albania to become a guarantor or surety of the assets of that lady who was the director of the National Agency for the Information Society (AKSHI) to be pointless.

I say "that lady who was", because that lady is no longer the director. Now she is accused by SPAK. Now she has been taken as a defendant as a member of a structured criminal group. Now she is also under house arrest.

However, even though officially accused by SPAK, even though accused as a member of a structured criminal group, even though under house arrest, the Prime Minister of Albania chose to come out on her side and tell us that everything SPAK has done to her is so unfair that not only has she been accused in vain, but the poor woman does not even have her own home and lives in a rented house.

Really sad!

And when this is said, neither more nor less, by the Prime Minister of Albania himself, even at a meeting of a select group of deputies and ministers who listened to him with their mouths open and completely amazed, there is no way not to believe it.

But the story doesn't end here.

From the official information of SPAK regarding the confiscation of the assets of the AKSHI structured criminal group, we learn that the former director, for whom the Prime Minister of Albania put his hands in the fire and said that she did not even have a house to put her head in and that she lives in a rented house, turns out to have several assets (apartments in Tirana and on the coast, areas with olive groves, several bank accounts, etc.).
Here a question arises:

Should the Prime Minister of Albania have spoken up and taken it upon himself to tell public opinion whether or not that lady had a house of her own?

Because the issue is no longer simply whether he was misinformed or whether he chose to say something untrue. The issue lies elsewhere.

A Prime Minister is not a free commentator nor an ordinary citizen sharing a personal opinion. He is the Prime Minister of Albania.

And as such, his every word has institutional weight and value.

When he says that a person “doesn’t have a home” or “lives in a rental,” he is not simply expressing an opinion. He is stating a fact. In fact, he is stating it with the authority of the office he holds.
And therein lies the real problem.

Because once a case is in the hands of justice, under investigation by SPAK, any attempt to publicly "guarantee" an individual, even rhetorically, creates an unnecessary and dangerous clash.

On one hand we have the institution that investigates and seizes assets. On the other hand we have the Prime Minister of Albania who gives public guarantees to the contrary of what SPAK says.
At this point, the public is left in an absurd position: Who should they trust?
And this is the biggest consequence.

Because even in the best case, if the Prime Minister is simply misinformed, we have a serious problem with the way he is informed on such sensitive issues.
But in the other case, if he has spoken knowing the reality, then we have an even more serious problem: the use of authority to construct a “truth” of his own that does not match the facts.

However, beyond these two scenarios, a simple truth remains:
The Prime Minister of Albania should not be anyone's guarantor before justice.
Because the moment he does so, he is no longer simply protecting an individual. He is violating the boundary that should exist between political power and justice.
And when this boundary is touched and crossed, the damage is no longer individual.
It is institutional.

Therefore the question:

Did the Prime Minister of Albania lie to him or did he lie to us? We need answers.

But perhaps this is no longer the most important question.

The most important question is:
Why does a prime minister take it upon himself to speak as a guarantor on an issue that should belong only to justice?