The lawmakers had sought a review of Shabani’s eligibility and compatibility with the post, as well as the annulment of parliament’s decision to elect him.

The court said the Ombudsman is a constitutional official and that questions concerning eligibility, incompatibility and the verification of his election fall within its jurisdiction. It nevertheless found no constitutional grounds to uphold the lawmakers’ claims.

One of the main issues concerned whether Shabani met the constitutional requirement of having recognised knowledge and activity in the field of human rights and law. The court said parliament has discretion in assessing candidates for constitutional posts, provided fundamental procedural guarantees are respected and the process is not arbitrary.

The court also rejected the lawmakers’ claim that Shabani’s previous political activity was incompatible with the Ombudsman’s position, saying the argument was unfounded in light of the circumstances at the time he took his oath in parliament.

On the issue of the 28 lawmakers required to support a candidacy, the court said the requirement had been met when the candidates were verified by parliament’s Laws Committee and advanced to a plenary vote. It said the subsequent withdrawal of support could no longer affect the parliamentary procedure.

Shabani was elected Ombudsman in December 2025 with 85 votes. The dispute began after Democratic Party lawmakers withdrew their signatures supporting candidates for the post, including Shabani, saying he no longer had their backing.

/e.i/r.e/a.f/u.sh/

The request by the Democratic Party was defeated by 77 votes against, 30 in favor, and one abstention.

The session began with a heated debate, as opposition lawmakers sought to withdraw their support for six candidates vying for the Ombudsman position.

In a speech to parliament, DP lawmaker Jorida Tabaku argued that the Ombudsman should be selected based on legal principles and with broad public support, rather than the backing of the ruling majority.

“We must choose an Ombudsman in accordance with the law and parliamentary rules, avoiding creating further constitutional gridlock,” Tabaku said. “The Ombudsman should represent all citizens, not just the interests of the ruling party.”

However, Ulsi Manja, head of the parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee, rejected the opposition’s claims and explained the process for selecting the Ombudsman, following a request to withdraw signatures for the 26 nominated candidates.

Manja emphasized that the committee had adhered strictly to the legal framework set by the Constitution, the law on the Ombudsman, and parliamentary regulations. He noted that candidates had 20 days to gather 28 supporting signatures from MPs, with most candidates submitting them within the designated timeframe.

The Committee chair accused the opposition of trying to change the rules after the deadline, stating that attempts to withdraw signatures on December 9 “had no legal effect.”

“Withdrawal of signatures after the December 2 deadline contradicts the principle of legal certainty,” Manja said. “You cannot sign in the morning and withdraw your support in the evening; it creates chaos,” he added, stressing that all signatures submitted within the deadline remain valid.

/gj.m/r.e/a.f/u.sh/