From Tahiri to Balluku: Rama's double standard with justice

From the refusal to arrest former minister Saimir Tahiri, to the immediate lifting of immunity for Arben Ahmetaj and the current case of Belinda Balluku, the Assembly has followed different approaches to justice demands, turning the majority-SPAK relationship into a continuous political and institutional test.

The Assembly's decisions on whether or not to lift immunity have followed different approaches over time, reflecting the political weight of the figures involved.

The Special Prosecution's request to lift immunity, paving the way for the arrest of Belinda Balluku , returns Rama's confrontation with justice to the center of public and institutional debate.

Rama has allowed justice to act quickly when the political cost has been low, but has blocked or relativized the process when the circle of real power has been affected.

The first important precedent was set in 2018, when the socialist majority refused to open the way for the arrest of former minister Saimir Tahiri , despite the request of the Serious Crimes Prosecutor's Office. The Assembly chose an intermediate path, not authorizing the deprivation of liberty, but only lighter security measures, while Tahiri then, at a separate stage, resigned from the mandate of the deputy. This case was considered a political use of parliamentary immunity.

After the creation of SPAK, the majority's approach changed in several cases. The Assembly approved without resistance the lifting of immunity for former Deputy Prime Minister Arben Ahmetaj , paving the way for criminal measures and an in-depth investigation. The same line was followed for socialist MPs such as Alqi Bllako and Jurgis Çyrbja , while former Minister Lefter Koka was arrested without the need for parliamentary procedure, as he no longer held a mandate as an MP.

However, these cases had one element in common: the figures involved were either already politically distanced from the prime minister, or no longer represented a pillar of executive power.

The situation is different when investigations affect key figures in the incumbent government. The case of Tirana Mayor Erion Veliaj was accompanied by strong political protection before justice intervened. Unlike ministers and MPs, mayors do not enjoy parliamentary immunity, so Veliaj's case is mentioned only as an example of political protection, and not as a procedural precedent in the Assembly.

In this context, the case of Belinda Balluku presents new evidence. She is the highest-ranking government official in office against whom SPAK is seeking stronger measures, while the Assembly has the authority to lift immunity. The parliamentary regulation gives the majority not only the power to vote, but also the possibility of delaying the process for up to three months, after which the prosecution's request is considered dismissed if there is no decision.

The use of this procedural space, although formally legal, may constitute a real obstacle to justice and violate the spirit of the Constitution and the principle of equality before the law. Moreover, any decision-making or non-decision-making by the Assembly at this stage is read as a political signal about the majority's relationship with the Justice Reform.

From Tahiri to Balluku, the Assembly has followed different approaches to justice demands, creating a practice that is not always uniform. While in some cases the majority has allowed swift action by the justice bodies, in other cases it has chosen resistance, procrastination or political protection.

The decision to be taken regarding Belinda Balluku will not be just a procedural act, but a political and institutional test for the majority. More than the individual fate of an official, what is at stake is the credibility of the principle that immunity does not serve as a political shield, but as a procedural guarantee that should not hinder criminal prosecution.