Democratic Party MP Jorida Tabaku has denounced the government’s establishment of a system of state institutions and corporations that, according to her, operate outside the standards of transparency, competition and accountability. In the “Weekend Corner”, Tabaku analyzed three of these structures – the state-owned company KAYO, the Albanian Development Bank and the Albanian Investment Corporation – describing them as part of an “archipelago of illegality”, built during the 13 years of Edi Rama’s government.

According to Tabaku, these structures may seem distant from the daily concerns of citizens, but the way they use public funds and assets directly affects prices, taxes, the quality of services and the cost of living. “The money is public. The assets are public. The risk is public. While decision-making is concentrated in a few hands and control is weakened. This is the essence of the problem. And this is the economy of the minority, the bill of which is paid by the majority,” Tabaku declared.

At the center of her analysis was KAYO, the state-owned company created for the defense industry, which in a short period of time has been involved in a series of joint ventures with private companies. Tabaku raised questions about the method of selecting private partners, competition, assessment of their experience, cost control, conflict of interest and publication of contracts and beneficial owners. “How was each partner selected? What competition was held? How was their experience assessed? Who controls the costs? Who verifies the conflict of interest? Where are the contracts and the final beneficiaries published? What responsibility does the board bear for every euro spent?”, asked the democratic MP. According to her, the use of the argument of national security cannot serve as a shield for the lack of financial transparency. She made it clear that the opposition does not oppose the development of the Albanian defense industry, but the model that passes the profits to the private sector and the risk to the citizens.

According to her, the government is simultaneously a shareholder, appoints managers, sets priorities and receives reporting, while a completely independent control is missing. “A development bank can be an engine for entrepreneurship; but, without professional filters, it can turn into a counter for political clients. It can finance the farmer who produces, or the friend who calls. It can help the business with ideas, or the business with connections”, warned Tabaku. She demanded transparency for large loans, state guarantees, beneficiaries and any possible budget exposure, underlining that “development is not afraid of transparency. Only favor is afraid of it”.

REACTION

The archipelago of lawlessness

In this corner of the weekend I want to talk about something that, at first glance, seems far from our daily lives: about agencies, corporations and state-owned companies with big names, boards, directors and statutes. But, in reality, this topic is very close to every Albanian family, because it is related to the bill we pay at the end of the month, the price of food, the books and school supplies for children, the salary that is not enough, the taxes we pay and the services we do not receive. A new economic reality has been created on the map of Albania: several institutions that seem like isolated islands, but which, when you look at them together, form an entire archipelago of lawlessness, lack of transparency and uncontrolled power. One island is called KAYO. Another is called the Albanian Development Bank. Another is called the Albanian Investment Corporation. The names change, the fields change, but the model remains the same: the money is public, the assets are public, the risk is public, while decision-making is concentrated in a few hands and control is weakened. This is the core of the problem and this is the economy of the minority, the bill of which is paid by the majority.

This system did not arise overnight. It was built step by step over these thirteen years. It began with the micromanagement of tenders, concessions and public-private partnerships. From the smallest purchases to the largest contracts in health, energy or waste treatment, the idea was consolidated that it is not enough to have the best offer; you must be close to power. The honest entrepreneur began to understand that work, idea and investment are not enough when the outcome is decided by political connections. Then the system evolved. It was no longer enough to control a tender. Special structures were created, with special laws and special exceptions. Islands where the usual rules of the state are partially applied, where Parliament sees less, the public knows less and the government decides more. Today we are not faced with just isolated cases. We have an architecture.

Let's look at the first island: KAYO. KAYO was created as a state-owned company and, in a very short time, became part of a series of joint ventures with private companies. These partnerships affect the production of military equipment, uniforms, ammunition and technologies. So, we have public funds, state property, contracts in a strategic sector and private partners. Then the questions are inevitable: How was each partner selected? What competition was held? How was their experience assessed? Who controls the costs? Who verifies the conflict of interest? Where are the contracts and the final beneficiaries published? What responsibility does the board bear for every euro spent? These questions do not harm national security. On the contrary, they protect it. State secrecy cannot turn into financial secrecy. Security cannot be used as a veil to hide the way citizens' money is spent. We do not oppose Albanian production. We oppose the privatization of profit and the nationalization of risk. We oppose a model where the private sector gets the contract, while the citizen bears the bill if the project fails.

The second island is the Albanian Development Bank. Here too, we must be clear: Albania needs more financing for agriculture, small enterprises and sectors that commercial banks do not support much. The idea of ​​a development bank, in itself, is not wrong. The problem is who controls it, how it selects beneficiaries and who pays when loans are not repaid. The law provides for external auditing and a role for the Bank of Albania in supervising savings products collected through an entity of the Albanian Post, as well as for statistical reporting. But this is not the same as the full and usual supervision exercised over a commercial bank. So, the government is a shareholder, the government chooses the direction, the government sets the priorities and the report goes back to the government. This is precisely where the need for truly independent control arises, because a development bank can be an engine for entrepreneurship, but, without professional filters, it can turn into a counter for political clients. It can finance the farmer who produces or the friend who calls. It can help business with ideas or business with connections. That is why we demand that every large loan, every state guarantee, every beneficiary and every fiscal exposure be controllable and, when there is no legal obstacle, public. Development is not afraid of transparency. Only favor is afraid of it.

The third island is the Albanian Investment Corporation. Here the contrast is shocking. A municipality, a school or an institution cannot even buy a box of pens without a procedure. But when we talk about land, buildings and public assets worth millions of euros, the standard becomes more nebulous. The assets are transferred to a corporation and decision-making is concentrated in a structure much less visible to the citizen. The question is simple: Why is it that the greater the value, the less transparency? The Supreme State Audit, in its audit, has identified insufficient planning, a lack of standardized methodologies for project selection and management, incomplete risk and profitability analyses, as well as a 2 billion lek loan that was not repaid within the initial deadline. These are not political labels. They are findings that require answers. How many projects have been implemented? How many sustainable jobs have been created? How much income has the state received? How have public properties been valued? Who is responsible when consultants are paid, but the project does not progress? Where is the analysis that proves that the citizen gains more than he loses?

Even the “Durana Tech Park” project should be seen with this standard. Innovation is essential. Fiscal incentives can make sense when they bring new investments, technology and quality employment. But when companies receive fiscal privileges, citizens have the right to know the criteria, the cost to the budget and the real result on the ground. These three islands are not disconnected. They are connected by the same bridges: special laws, centralized decision-making, restriction of competition, insufficient control and risk that ends up with the taxpayer. And this is why this topic directly affects the cost of living. When the state chooses favor over competition, it pays more for the same good or service. When unrelated businesses are excluded, the market loses operators and competition weakens. When a state-owned enterprise has free land, public guarantees and contracts from the state, the private entrepreneur no longer competes on equal terms.

Corruption is not an abstract concept. Corruption is a hidden tax on every family. We pay it in price, in missed service and in lost opportunity. This is why an economy can grow statistically, while the family feels poorer. What should be done? First, every contract, partnership and transfer of public assets should be made public, along with the selection criteria, economic evaluation and final beneficiaries. Second, every state-owned company that uses public funds, property or guarantees should be subject to full control by the Parliament, the Supreme Audit Office and other independent institutions. Third, boards and managers should be held personally responsible for every decision, every contract and every euro spent. Fourth, real and equal competition should be restored. The entrepreneur should profit from work, idea and skill, not from connections to power.

We cannot build a strong economy on islands of exceptions. We cannot have one law for the citizen and another for the privileged. We cannot demand every invoice and every document from small businesses, while billions of euros are spent on structures where transparency is minimal. We cannot talk about European integration, while we create institutions that depart from European standards of competition, control and accountability. Albania needs institutions that serve the public, not structures that protect power. It needs an economy that rewards work, not political closeness. It needs a state that protects the taxpayer, not a state that passes the bill for failures and abuses to them.

These three islands are just part of a much larger archipelago. An archipelago built on special laws, closed contracts, favors and lack of control. An archipelago that is harming competition, weakening the economy and making life difficult for every Albanian family. This system does not change by removing some people and bringing in others. The very way of governing must change. Our goal is not to replace one group with another, but to govern for Albania and its citizens. This system must be changed. Not to replace the clients of one party with the clients of another party, but to end clientelism itself. Not to change the names on the offices, but to change the rules within them.

Albanians deserve an accountable state. They deserve an economy that works for the majority, not the minority. They deserve their taxes to be used for schools, hospitals, roads, and services, not for closed structures and privileged interests. We will fight to dismantle this archipelago of impunity and build a continent of equal laws, controlled institutions, and opportunities for all. Because Albania is not the property of power. Albania belongs to its citizens. And its economy must work for the majority, not the minority.