Flash News

Accident in Lezha, 69-year-old loses control and hits 4 parked vehicles

Accident in Lezha, car ends up in the parking lot of a playground

Report/ Albanian healthcare between limited transparency and under-financing

Accident on the Fier-Vlora axis, car goes off the road, 3 injured

State Matura, mathematics exam results published

Ditari i Opozitës

The court left him in prison/ Blushi presents Meta's positions in the hearing: Dismantling all farcical accusations!

Politiko 2025-06-26 18:34:23

The court left him in prison/ Blushi presents Meta's positions in the

The Secretary General of the Freedom Party, Tedi Blushi, has made public the defense submissions of the president of this political force, Ilir Meta, in the Supreme Court session, where he requested freedom.

In a media appearance, Blushi read Meta's positions to oppose the conclusions of the SPAK indictment filed against him.

During the conclusions, read by Blushi, Meta emphasizes that it is incomprehensible that SPAK insists on keeping him in detention, even after the investigations have been underway for a long time and have been postponed several times.

Tedi Blushi's Statement (Meta's Submissions)

1 - On page 3
II. The defendant Ilir Metaj and the person under investigation Monika Kryemadhi, have committed the criminal offense of “Passive corruption of high-ranking state officials and elected officials”, since from the analysis of the facts and evidence from ………….., they have established contacts with their administrator, the person under investigation, Adrian Shatku.

I. META: This conclusion of the indictment is an expression of an assessment that is not only unprofessional and unsupported by any evidence or fact, at least for Mr. Meta, but also completely tendentious, even from all the submissions made by the prosecutors.
There is no act or fact to prove that Mr. Meta appointed or trusted Mr. Adrian Shatku as his administrator.
Likewise, there is no act or fact that Mr. Meta was aware that A. Shatku was the administrator of his ex-wife and that they shared illegal or even legal benefits together.

2 – Page 3 last paragraph.
As a result of this activity and the abusive exercise of power, the parties have benefited from citizen A.SH and UNIFI, considerable income, including a percentage of the profit as well as the provision by A. Shatku several times with credit cards.

I.META: This conclusion is completely tendentious since there is no evidence or indication that Mr. Meta was aware of the illegal or legal benefits of his ex-wife from A. Shatku.
The reference to the percentage allocations on Ms. Kryemadhi's mobile phone that SPAK claims is up to Ms. Kryemadhi to clarify.
Even more tendentious is the prosecutors' attempt to present Mr. Meta as a co-beneficiary or aware of the illegal cards that the indictment alleges, which according to her herself are only in the name of Monika Kryemadhi, who according to SPAK, also turns out to be their beneficiary.
Mr. Meta was not only unaware of this illegal relationship, but after learning that after the search of Mrs. Kryemadhi's mother's apartment, there was such a card, but unused, according to Mrs. Kryemadhi, he also decided to legally divorce her, considering it a serious breach of trust, of the law for an experienced politician, but also to the detriment of his political causes.
Mr. Meta was only informed in the Court in the first session, after his arrest, about the use of this card in San Marino by the prosecution.
While for the other two cards he was only recognized on the day of the communication of the indictment as a defendant on May 27.
Likewise, the prosecution itself proves that Monika Kryemadhi is the only user of this card.

3 – On page 5
I.Meta: Once again, we emphasize that the prosecution's attempts to "prove" from the findings on Ms. Monika Kryemadhi's mobile phone that the persons under investigation, Metaj-Kryemadhi, have benefited from % of the profit from the company UNIFI Holding Inc, from the interconnection agreement with Vodafone, are both unfounded and contradictory.

Accusation: “This fact results from the communications that Monika has with Shatku where she addresses him with the expressions “we” “Dhori’s permission and mine”.
It is clear that if this conversation is true, by “we” she means herself and her cousin Adrian Shatku.
Just like the second part, if it is true, “mine” means her interests and this does not prove at all either the involvement of Ilir Meta in this alleged percentage relationship or his knowledge of such a relationship (as in the case of the cards).

4- On page 5.
Accusation: “Adrian Shatku is the trusted person of Ilir Meta and Monika Kryemadhi and according to the statement of Fatime Kryemadhi, also their distant cousin”

I.META: This conclusion is also tendentious, since from the entire investigation it results that Adrian Shatku is a person close to Monika Kryemadhi as a native of Dibra and Ema Shatku (Çoku), a close friend of Monika.
For these reasons he has been a person known and respected by Ilir Meta, but never his confidant nor aware of any illegal or suspicious activity of his.

5 – Page 5

META: Për të paraqitur këtë lidhje midis Ilir Metës dhe Adrian Shatkut shumë“të fortë”, akuza pasqyron episodin sipas komunikimeve elektronike se (sipas faqes 71 të komunikimit të akuzës si i pandehur):
“Në datën 5 shtator 2014, Monika e informon Adrianin se Iliri do të shkojë në Marok në datat 30-31 Tetor 2014 dhe i thotë se “potë duash për të vajtur dhe nëse të duhet ndonjë takim me ndonjë ministër – më tha Iliri”. Adriani i përgjigjet se ai do të shkojë dhe se “…takimin me PM do ta bëj unë….takojmë edhe ministrat e energjisë dhe telekomunikacionit”

Meta: Ky episod tregon jo vetëm se Monika informon Adrianin për lëvizjet e Kryetarit të Kuvendit, por edhe se Adriani ishte shumë i fuqishëm në Marok sa merrte përsipër të rregullonte takimin me PM (Kryeministër) dhe ministra të tjerë.
Atëherë përse i duhej ndihma e Kryetarit të Parlamentit të Shqipërisë në Marok, Adrianit, kur ishte kaq i lidhur me Kryeministrin e Marokut?
Siç dihet vizita ka qenë shtetërore dhe e bërë me të gjitha rregullat protokollare.
Përfshirja e episodeve të tilla kërkon në mënyrë të sforcuar të krijojë një lidhje të dyshimtë midis Ilir Metës dhe Adrian Shatkut e cila nuk ekziston në asnjë rrethanë.

6-Meta: Prokurorët në mënyrë absurde, përdorin një deklarim të shtetasit Eriol Braimllari, i cili është kushëri i Endrit Braimllarit, të dy të përfshirë në çështjen e lobimeve për të rrëzuar pretendimin sipas SPAK-ut, të të pandehurit Ilir Metaj se ai nuk ka asnjë lidhje me Adrian Shatkun.

Meta: Në përgjigje të pyetjeve të bëra më parë nga akuza, unë i kam bërë të qarta rrethanat e njohjes me Adrian Shatkun, ndaj kjo lojë fjalësh e prokurorëve është pa kuptim.
Nëse unë nuk kam pasur asnjë lidhje të dyshimtë, të paligjshme, ky nuk është faji im, por merita e sjelljeve të mia përherë të përgjegjshme, të ligjshme dhe të moralshme.
Po kështu, shtetasin Eriol Braimllari mund ta pyesni nëse është takuar të paktën njëherë apo të paktën 100 herë me shtetasin Adrian Shatku në Tiranë apo edhe në Uashington edhe pa Kryetarin e Parlamentit. Për këtë mund t’ju ndihmojë edhe sistemi TIMS.

7-Meta: Lidhur me diferencat që i rezultojnë organit të akuzës për lobimet e LSI në SHBA, theksojmë se çdo veprim nga ana e Z. Meta dhe Kryesisë së LSI, deri në Prill 2017 kur Z. Meta u zëvendësua nga Z. Petrit Vasili si Kryetar i LSI, ka qenë në respekt të plotë të ligjeve shqiptare dhe amerikane.
Çdo marrëveshje miratohej në Kryesi dhe një titullar caktohej për të firmosur dhe ndjekur zbatimin e saj sipas klauzolave të rëna dakord me kompanitë përkatëse.
Z. Meta kurrë as nuk ka autorizuar e as nuk ka patur dijeni se një person apo kompani në Shqipëri apo SHBA ka bërë pagesa të padeklaruara, paratë e paligjshme për interes të LSI.
Likewise, Mr. Meta is surprised how American companies can accept such payments in violation of American laws and we are interested to know if any of them are being investigated by the US for this violation of American laws.
Likewise, Mr. Meta has informed you and proven, as in the case of the “McKeon Group”, for which a legal and declared payment of $15 thousand was made, how the intermediary, the Greek-American lawyer Fidetzis, had registered an agreement with FARA on behalf of LSI without being authorized by LSI and this was denounced by Mr. Meta himself to the President of the “McKeon Group” and from him FARA was notified.
Regarding the accusation’s claim about my close relationship with Ms. Ema Çoku (Shatku), we are dealing with a deliberate speculation since they were purely courtesy relations and not at all close, moreover that she personally was not part of the leadership structures of the Freedom Party (LSI), but had social and family ties with Ms. Kryemadhi.

While regarding the other influences of Ilir Meta in episodes that result, according to SPAK, from telephone communications of Ms. Monika Kryemadhi or other persons, they are imaginary, speculative and untrue.
Likewise, we assess that SPAK continues towards Mr. Meta the standard of investigation at the same level as in the standard of his arrest (kidnapping) outside of any objectivity and in serious violation of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

We assess the permission that SPAK has given to Ms. Monika Kryemadhi in January of this year to visit the US where Mr. Adrian Shatku and representatives of lobbying companies involved in this process are also present, but we fail to understand the insistence on keeping Mr. Meta in detention even after the investigations have been underway for a long time and have been postponed several times.

Therefore, we hope that the Court will put this investigation process on the tracks of the rule of law, especially since Mr. Meta is the President of the second opposition force in the country and there is no risk of his departure, as he has been under investigation for 6 years and on the day of his arrest (kidnapping) he was coming from Kosovo.