Vetting show

Clashes with magistrates in Fier and reporting to SPAK
In 2010, the Lushnja Prosecutor's Office would launch investigations for document falsification against Ferit Tabaku and Faslli Turku. During the investigations, it was established that the privatization documents had been corrected and that the rent paid by Tabaku corresponded to the small area, not the changed one. Despite the findings, in May 2016, the prosecutor's office would dismiss the case because the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution had expired.

However, this decision would leave the forged documents in force, allowing Tabaku to continue building the palace on Sefedin's property. The situation would change after Ferit Tabaku, who had just avoided punishment due to the statute of limitations for forgery, would file a criminal complaint against Sefedin Shefa. Tabaku claimed that the 1958 documents used by Sefedin were forged, and Prosecutor Merita Selimi took over the case against Sefedin.

"Merita Selimi, for a word someone said, 'I'll kill him, I'll do it,' was secured for six months by the competent authorities, including the police."

Their problem, let them abide by the law and I don't care. It caused the state over 50-60 million lekë damage. How is it possible, respected journalist, that this prosecutor in collaboration with the chief secretary of the Lushnje Prosecutor's Office at the time, on March 9th, gave me a pretense, gave me nine months in prison for falsifying documents, which I will tell you about later, and on March 10th, she sends the sons of the chief secretary, Etleva Zaimit, to kill me in my shop and says there is no criminal case.

"Then tomorrow, will someone protect us as a people or will they leave us to be killed?" declared Shefa.

According to the latter, this penalized him for civil matters as problems would arise with the magistrates in Fier.

"In the criminal report to SPAK, I mentioned five names, four judges and one prosecutor.

The prosecutor is Merita Selimi, who in my opinion is confusing the issue on all sides. Apparently this prosecutor has agreed with the thief of my property, even though this prosecutor herself has issued an order for the execution of the blocking of these entrances and shops of the palace, which was built on my father's property. It is this prosecutor who has allowed the thief of my property, Ferit Tabaku, to rent out the entrances.

"There is even a criminal complaint against Judge Miranda Nakaj, who, contrary to the law and in a conflict of interest, the judge who is my rapporteur in the civil case, has used for about a year and a half an entrance to this building with a lease contract given by Ferit Tabaku. Even worse, by requesting this court to resign on this issue because it has violated the law with both feet, Judge Miranda Nakaj is suspending my civil case out of anger," said Shefa, also explaining the reasons for the lawsuit in SPAK.

Sefedin Shefa's problem became complicated in the next trial for the destruction of forged documents and the building permit for the palace, with the aim of returning the property to the owner.

The case that was tried in the Fier Court would be returned to Fier after the recourse to the High Court by Ferit Tabaku as a legitimate party in this process.

The clash in Fier represents the essence of a battle where Sefedin Shefa seeks to undo what he describes as a gigantic scheme of property alienation through cooperation between the builder and people in the justice system. The subject of the civil and criminal proceedings in Fier is related to the request for the repeal of administrative acts that allowed Ferit Tabaku to build the palace on land that Shefa claims belongs to his family based on the 1958 expropriation record.

Part of this trial is the confirmation of the invalidity of the construction permit and mortgage registrations, which according to the Chief were carried out on forged documents that erased the real origin of the property to pave the way for private investment.

On September 9, 2025, the Fier Court was to dismiss the case, but according to the complainant Shefa, things did not go as planned.

Magistrate Alfred Konomi would conduct the trial without the presence of the designated prosecutor, Genci Mane. The hearing would even be interrupted.

"We have reported Judge Alfred Konomi. Judge Alfred Konomi conducted the trial for three months without the presence of the prosecution. The law states that the case, the indictment that the prosecution had, must be defended by the prosecution.

"From the draw of this case, Genci Mane was appointed prosecutor, who after 15 days was removed from the vetting, due to his problems and in fact the case had to be re-drawn for another prosecutor to come. Ironically and surprisingly, let the viewers be shocked by what prosecutor Merita Selimi does," says Shefa.

In his decision, Judge Konomi stated that "The Court has withdrawn its decision, after examining the case, having properly heard the claims of the parties. Based on the decision of the Supreme Court, which has also left the relevant duties, based on articles 328, 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it decided to dismiss the request of Sefedin Shefa. It was announced in Fier today, September 9, 2025. The session is declared closed."

Sefedin Shefa would not leave it at that and would file a lawsuit with SPAK.

"I, who filed this criminal report, did not raise the issue in the criminal report in vain. There is no right, I repeat, Judge Alfred Konomi has broken the law with both feet."

Even worse, in my opinion, a prosecutor found on the street enters the courtroom and says, "I just received the case and I want time to get to know the case." A judge has no right to make three decisions within a month.

"One time he will be defended by the prosecution represented by Genc Mane, one time he will be without a prosecutor, and one time the prosecutor, Elvis Alliu, will come," said the Chief.

He says he requested the footage from the Fier Court, but the Court refused to make it available.

Vlora Prosecutor's Office sends victim to "abusers"
The SPAK would delegate the report of Sefedin Shefa to the Vlora Prosecutor's Office in early 2026. For 36 days, this prosecutor's office would not take any action except for the fact that judicial police officer Altin Muçaj would question Shefa only once on January 20, 2026.

From the official documents of the Vlora Prosecutor's Office and correspondence with the Ombudsman, the event can be described as a dragging process that ended with an immediate move as soon as the case became public.

It all started when the Vlora Prosecution Office received Sefedin Shefa's complaint from SPAK on January 6, 2026, officially registering it on January 7, 2026. Although the file was in their hands, the documents prove that for more than a month the complainant did not receive any response on the matter, which forced Shefa to turn to the Ombudsman.

"The Vlora Prosecutor's Office reexamined the case and broke the law with both feet, because the Judicial Police officer questioned me. If he hadn't taken me, he would have read the criminal report file and sent it," says Shefa.

On February 12, 2026, a paradox would occur that is rarely seen in the institution of justice. Within the same day, the Vlora Prosecutor's Office would inform Sefedin that it had registered the case, but at the same moment, it also signed the 'detention' of the file.

The documents confirm that the case was forwarded to the Fier Prosecution Office with the argument that the subject and the alleged crime scene belong to that prosecution, ignoring the fact that the file was sent to Vlora precisely to avoid the conflict of interest in Fier. The documents show that the Vlora Prosecution Office held the file “hostage” for 36 days without taking any investigative action and, as soon as it came under pressure from the Ombudsman, took the case out of their hands by sending it precisely to the people reported in Fier, thus closing the way for an independent investigation that SPAK had requested.

Subsequent correspondence of April 2, 2026 confirms that the Ombudsman considered the citizen's complaint about lack of information to be well-founded, but clarified that he had no legal authority to intervene in the prosecutor's decision to declare himself incompetent.

Vetting made a request for information to the General Prosecutor's Office regarding the case of competences between the Vlora and Fier Prosecutor's Offices regarding the report of Sefedin Shefa, but in two requests the Prosecutor's Office would make a strict legal interpretation, washing its hands of the problem of competences between the prosecutor's offices.

The General Prosecutor's Office would choose the path of legal technicalities, avoiding a clarification of who should hold the case. Based on Article 78 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the General Prosecutor's Office argued that as long as the magistrates have not officially assumed the status of defendant, the competence to investigate them remains with the prosecutor's office where the crime is alleged to have been committed, that is, in Fier. This interpretation creates an anomaly because in order for the file to be removed from Fier, the prosecutors of Fier must take their colleagues from the office as defendants.

But how can you become a defendant when the investigation is being conducted by your colleagues in the office? This is the question that the General Prosecutor's Office refused to raise.

"In my opinion, this case should not be accepted at all in the Fier Prosecutor's Office and the Fier Court, for the sole reason that the persons who have been charged in this case are in this prosecutor's office and court," declared the Chief.

This interpretation creates an almost insurmountable obstacle for the Chief. This is because the delegation from the Vlora Prosecution Office leaves it to the Fier Prosecution Office to decide whether their colleagues should be turned into defendants.

In this case, the fact that the prosecutor must investigate his close associates with whom he shares offices every day is being ignored. At the very least, in this case we have an apparent conflict of interest since the accused cannot investigate themselves.

The General Prosecutor's Office explains that although the Vlora Prosecutor's Office had a legal obligation to accept the acts when they were sent by SPAK, this did not prevent Vlora from declaring incompetence after registration and forwarding them elsewhere. The institution distances itself by saying that they only intervene when there is a formal disagreement between the two prosecutors, but since Vlora initiated the file and Fier accepted it, there is no official conflict that requires the intervention of the General Prosecutor.

"Here the question arises, does such a case exist legally and logically for a first-instance prosecutor to declare incompetence and send the case to the first-instance prosecutor's office for the persons against whom a criminal report has been filed by me?"

"My answer is: the law was broken for me," says Sefedin Shefa with conviction.

The Fier Prosecution Office has decided not to initiate criminal proceedings on February 23, 2026, and on April 10, 2026, Sefedin Shefa has a court hearing to challenge this decision before Judge Noel Veizi.