
"So she has an issue with justice. There, neither I nor anyone else is defending her. There, she is defending herself, as far as she is concerned."
This was Prime Minister Edi Rama's comment about his former deputy, Belinda Balluku, on the podcast "Flasim". A statement that comes at a time when Balluku's position in the face of justice has changed significantly since March, when the socialist majority rejected SPAK's request for her arrest in Parliament by 82 votes. The investigation has meanwhile been expanded.
After announcing that it had identified a villa in Palasa, which was suspected to be in Balluk's de facto ownership, but was registered in other names, a few days ago SPAK announced that it had identified another unjustified asset, suspected to be the product of corruption.
The charges against her have been increased, while Balluku no longer holds a government position and continues to be investigated at large. But one question has remained open since July. While reporting to the Assembly, the head of SPAK, Klodian Braho, was directly asked whether the Special Prosecution could request Balluku's arrest again after the first rejection by the Parliament.
"I cannot give concrete details. It is a concrete issue, but at a later point the prosecution will have the relevant decision-making. SPAK has reflected in the closed-door discussion what it requested and the prosecution's reaction after the Assembly's decision-making is clear."
So far, SPAK has not returned to the Assembly with a second request. But since the first request, circumstances have changed. The investigation has been expanded, the charges have been added, and Balluku is no longer part of the government. The Prime Minister's political language has also changed.
In March, the majority led by him rejected SPAK's request to arrest Balluku. Six months later, Rama says that no one is defending him in the face of justice and that Balluku must defend himself.
Balluku retains her mandate as an MP and the authorization of the Assembly is required for her arrest or deprivation of liberty. This is where the question returns: Has the file changed enough for SPAK to request a new security measure and return to Parliament?
A security measure does not necessarily mean arrest and does not constitute a sentence. It is determined by the court based on the specific conditions and needs of the investigation. The opposition also demands that SPAK be returned to the Parliament.
The head of the Democratic Party parliamentary group, Gazment Bardhi, argues that the expansion of the investigation and the worsening of Balluk's procedural position should be accompanied by a reassessment of the security measure. But Balluk's departure from the government raises another question. Has her influence on the structures she led for years ended with her tenure?
In some of the institutions and sectors that were under her responsibility, leaders and officials who took on responsibilities during Balluk's leadership continue to work. This, in itself, does not prove any illegal influence.
But as the investigation continues and involves decision-making made precisely in these structures, it becomes relevant to understand whether the former minister continues to have communication or informal influence over the people and institutions she once led. Balluku is no longer a minister. But how much of the power she built over the years has gone with the post? So far, SPAK has not submitted a new request to the Parliament.
In July, the head of the Special Prosecution Office spoke of a decision that would come at a “later moment.” Today, the file has expanded. Balluku is no longer in government.
And the prime minister says that in the face of justice she defends herself. Therefore, the question is no longer just what is in the Balluku file. The question is what SPAK will do with it. And whether the “later moment” announced in July has arrived. (TCH)