'Balluku Should Not Be Arrested'/ Rama Orders Socialist Parliamentary Group to Stage a Coup

Edi Rama instructed his parliamentary group to carry out what critics describe as an open institutional coup by blocking the arrest of Belinda Balluku.

Ulsi Manja defended Balluku, saying her arrest would not be allowed because the legal conditions have not been met.

He also stated that there is no evidence that she intimidated witnesses or defendants.

“Regarding the need to tighten the security measure, the Council on Mandates considered the legal framework governing the replacement of such measures. This provision requires the existence of new facts. Now, SPAK states in its report that several new facts and episodes have been added, which automatically increase the hypothetical damage suffered by the state from these procedures. In our assessment, tightening the measure would mean placing her in pre-trial detention, when this should be the last resort. One fact remains unchanged, the criminal offense itself. The claim does not meet the required conditions. Pre-trial detention is the final measure. There is no new criminal offense; it remains solely the alleged violation of equality in public tenders. The offense remains the same. The claim that the situation has worsened does not change this,” Manja said.

“Regarding the risk of tampering with evidence, the prosecution refers to the possibility of influence through individuals with authority, as well as attempts to pressure witnesses. In its request, SPAK referred to the time when she served as minister. That circumstance no longer applies. Balluku does not face any charge of obstructing justice. There is no evidence, direct or indirect, that the MP used her influence to tamper with evidence,” Manja added.

Manja also addressed the alleged risk of witness intimidation by Balluku, arguing that the accusation does not stand.

“We were presented with a report in which two citizens were discussing the testimony one of them had given during the SPAK investigation. She claims that she was intimidated. However, neither the report nor the statements of this citizen indicate that she was intimidated, certainly not by the MP, and even when reference is made to the ‘cabinet,’ that is an abstract notion. A criminal investigation cannot be conducted against a ‘cabinet.’ Furthermore, regarding the claim that this witness was intimidated by powerful individuals, she herself stated: ‘I stand by my testimony.’ In all cases, such evidence must be supported by additional proof. As for this witness, she has the status of a defendant in this proceeding and, under the Criminal Code, statements made by a defendant must be treated with caution. The risk of evidence tampering has not been proven with real facts, but rather rests on considerations related to Balluku’s former position as minister. If evidence had been tampered with, there would be a second charge for obstruction of justice,” Manja said.