Asked at the year-end press conference with journalists, held at the Prime Minister’s Office, regarding the parliamentary majority’s stance on the case of Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku, Rama raised the question.

“Have you heard a single word of legal reasoning from our side regarding this specific case? That’s the question. I don’t think so. Neither I nor anyone else has examined the details of the case,” the Prime Minister stated.

“This case differs from others because it has reached us directly; it is not one of those matters that the judiciary typically handles on its own, where the prosecution proceeds without having to involve us,” Rama said.

And, the Prime Minister emphasized, “when a case comes to our door — I speak of the legislative branch — then the legislative branch must express its position. It is not the prosecution’s notary office.”

“The Mandates Council is not a notary office; it functions as a quasi-court. Parliament does not notarize the requests it receives. It reviews them and examines them,” Rama emphasized.

Speaking about the 16,000 pages submitted by SPAK to the Mandates Council, Rama stated that they are not the product of an investigation.

“I honestly wouldn’t have wanted you to bring up those 16,000 pages of so-called evidence, as they have provoked me from the very beginning. If I were on the Mandates Council, I would tell those who submitted them to leave and return with a proper file for the Parliament of Albania and its deputies. You cannot present 16,000 pages and call them evidence,” Rama said.

“Do you know what those 16,000 pages are? They are not the output of an investigation, because they cannot be. They consist of 16,000 pages containing contracts, studies, and the Ministry’s archives. Essentially, it’s a jumble of official documents, and it’s obvious without even looking at them,” Rama emphasized.

The Prime Minister stressed, “The USB provided by the prosecution office has not been accessed by any Socialist Party deputy, nor by the minister or the lawyer. Let me be very clear: this is to prevent anyone from later claiming that it was obtained by them.”

Rama emphasized that, “This is not a matter of changing our stance; rather, it is about taking the proper and very correct position on our part, because the case has come to parliament.”

“And even before reaching parliament, the case intruded into the executive’s jurisdiction in an aggressive manner, accompanied by an appalling request for suspension from office unlike anything seen in the world history,” Rama said.

“Now I can say it openly because we have asked everywhere. If there is a second case like this, there isn’t. It hasn’t happened in Europe, certainly not, and it hasn’t happened anywhere else in the world that a prosecutor and a judge come together and say, ‘This minister must be suspended because we have decided so,’” the head of the government emphasized.

“The case reached us, and a stand had to be taken. We followed an institutional approach, bringing it before the Constitutional Court, and we will certainly maintain this stance in parliament — there is no question about it,” Rama added.

/gj.m/j.p/sm/