Prime Minister Edi Rama commented at the start of his podcast Let's Talk about the suspension of Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku, warning of the undertaking of a legal initiative after what he described as "the failure of the Constitutional Court of Albania to make a decision".
Rama stated that the issue is not related to the individual, but to the principle of the separation of constitutional powers. According to him, the court decision to suspend a minister as a criminal security measure has highlighted a legal and institutional gap, adding that in a system without a consolidated democratic culture, in addition to the spirit of the Constitution, a clear legal definition is also needed.
The Prime Minister stressed that the courts have the right to impose security measures for any person under investigation, but added that some state functions, such as that of a minister, are paralyzed if the holder is suspended from office. According to him, the suspension of a minister produces in practice the same effect as dismissal, while the appointment and dismissal of ministers, according to him, are exclusive competences of the executive.
Rama stated that the judiciary should be independent and that it currently is, but stressed that its independence should not interfere with the independence of other powers, such as the executive and legislative. He announced that, following the Constitutional Court's decision, a legal initiative will be filed on Monday to address the "identified gap". According to Rama, the initiative will be submitted in the capacity of a deputy, in cooperation with the head of the parliamentary group Taulant Balla and the chairman of the Laws Committee Ulsi Manja. The Prime Minister added that the initiative will be presented to the parliamentary group and the process will be transparent, with the presentation to be made in the presence of the media.
"I would also like to pause for a necessary clarification regarding the conclusions of the parliamentary group meeting this week after the Constitutional Court's indecision. Because again, as usual, a cloud of interpretations of the most diverse kinds begins to circulate in the air. Once again, the issue is not with the person, the issue is with the principle and in this case it is not with the abstract principle, but with the principle of the non-negotiable separation of constitutional powers, which means: a judicial decision to suspend a minister from his duties, within the framework of a criminal security measure, has highlighted a gap that is a gap that exists both in the heads of prosecutors and judges and, also in our legislation, while in this country without a consolidated democratic culture, and with an independent justice, at a very young age, the spirit of the Constitution, which is very clear, is not enough, the letter of the law is also needed, even letter by letter, even for elementary things like this.
The court, in exercising its powers, has the right to impose security measures for any person under investigation, no one discusses this and no one is above the law, and here we all agree, at least everyone in words, but I also agree in deeds. But at the same time, there are some functions, including that of the minister, which are paralyzed if the minister is suspended.
So, in fact, if you say that "I suspend a minister", "I suspend the President of the Republic", "I suspend the Chairman of the Supreme Audit Office" and I know of several others who cover non-delegable functions, in fact, you produce an immediate consequence equivalent to dismissal, because the person is not simply suspended, as can happen with a director whose work is done by someone else, but the function is suspended.
While, precisely because of the function, the appointment or dismissal of a minister is never possible anywhere in the world, I can say this with all my heart now, because no one has been able to bring up a case where, in a country in the world, this competence is with a prosecutor and a judge in a preliminary hearing, justice must be independent.
Today it is independent and must remain independent forever, but the independence of the judicial branch ends where the independence of the other two branches of government begins, the legislative and the executive, which, among other things, have the right and duty to appoint or dismiss ministers, and this right and duty is not shared with the judiciary, does not belong to the judiciary, and cannot be allowed to be taken over by the judiciary.
However, now that even the Constitutional Court could not make a decision on the specific case, we will move beyond the specific case and on Monday, in my capacity as a deputy, I, together with the Chairman of the group Taulant Balla and the Chairman of the Laws Committee, Ulsi Manja, that is, with our three signatures, will file the initiative to immediately address the gap in question. The initiative will be presented initially to the Parliamentary Group at its meeting at the beginning of the week, on Monday morning, and will also be transparent for public opinion, as the presentation of the initiative will be made with the presence of the media", said Rama.
