Denada Jushi
In the final months of 2025, Belinda Balluku, deputy prime minister and a key cabinet figure, was the target of a high-profile investigation by the Special Prosecution Office against Corruption and Organized Crime (SPAK). The investigation was related to suspicions of manipulation of public procurement procedures in major infrastructure projects, including the tender for the construction of the Llogara Tunnel, a road project worth around 140 million euros in the south of the country, and the Tirana Ring Road.
SPAK suspects that certain companies were favored in these tenders through a violation of the principle of equality, with the direct involvement of senior officials in the Ministry of Infrastructure. In November 2025, prosecutors officially announced that Balluku had been indicted for “violation of equality in tenders” in connection with two public contracts with a total value of approximately 210 million euros.
According to the indictment, she acted in collaboration with some of her closest subordinates, including Evis Berberi, Gentian Gjyli and Erald Elezi, to manipulate procedures and favor the winning bidders. Later, suspicions of violations in the tender for the Grand Ring Road project in Tirana were added to the investigation, expanding the charges against her.
After the criminal charges were filed, the case was transferred to the Special Court Against Corruption and Organized Crime (SCAC). At the end of November 2025, the SCAC accepted SPAK's request to impose a personal security measure on Balluk: her immediate suspension from her ministerial duties and a ban on her leaving the country. With this decision, the Deputy Prime Minister was forced to temporarily leave her government post, while her passport was also seized to prevent any attempt to leave the country. It was the first time in history that an active member of the Albanian government cabinet was suspended from office by court decision due to pending criminal charges.
This unprecedented step by the judiciary immediately provoked strong reactions from the government. Prime Minister Edi Rama publicly denounced the special court’s decision as an unconstitutional interference in the affairs of the executive. According to Rama, the suspension of a serving minister violated the independence of the executive branch and violated the Prime Minister’s constitutional powers to form and operate the cabinet. He argued that a judge’s decision was impeding the normal exercise of government functions, describing this as a “battle for the independence of the executive branch.” On the other hand, Ms. Balluku herself rejected the accusations and described the actions of the prosecution and the court as unfounded, although her public statements were few during the investigation process.
The Prime Minister’s conflicting stance towards the judiciary raised concerns within the justice system. The National Association of Judges reacted on 9 December 2025, with a public statement, condemning Rama’s rhetoric as pressure on the courts. The judges noted that, under the guise of a complaint for violation of competences, the Prime Minister was in fact sending a threatening message to the justice bodies that were examining the Balluku case. The statement stressed that repeated verbal attacks on judicial decisions risk undermining public trust in justice and violate the fundamental principle of the separation and balance of powers in a democracy.
Despite the criticism, the Prime Minister did not back down. He reacted publicly, insisting that he would not “shut up” on the issue, since according to him the very position of Prime Minister, mandated by the votes of the citizens, had been put at risk by the decision of a prosecutor and a judge. Rama argued that, since he was a plaintiff in this constitutional process, he had the right to openly express his opinion on the matter.
On December 4, 2025, the Council of Ministers officially filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court, requesting interpretation and resolution of the dispute over powers between the executive and the judiciary. The content of the request focused on the essential question: Can a court suspend a serving minister (and also a member of parliament) without violating the Constitution?
The government claimed that the Albanian Constitution and legal framework do not provide for any suspension mechanism for members of the Council of Ministers. According to this logic, the GJKKO decision violated the constitutional powers of several powers at once.
The Albanian Parliament and the Presidency, which were summoned by the Constitutional Court as interested parties in the process, openly supported the government's position. The representative of the Parliament, Mimoza Arbi, argued that the suspension of a minister also affects the role of the Parliament, which has voted that minister into office.
She stressed that MPs enjoy immunity from detention or restriction of liberty without the authorization of the Assembly, and that the de facto suspension of Ms. Balluku from office (for an indefinite period) violated this immunity guaranteed by the Constitution. According to the Assembly representative, if the suspension were to be equated with dismissal, then the GJKKO has taken over the competence of the Assembly, which is the body that votes on the President’s decree on the appointment or dismissal of ministers.
The legal representatives of the President of the Republic also maintained the same line. Legal advisor Ilir Rusmali stated that "The Constitution of Albania does not recognize a constitutional suspension mechanism for members of the Council of Ministers."
He warned that legitimizing the GJKKO decision would create a dangerous precedent where, theoretically, the entire executive could be suspended at the request of SPAK if an issue involving the government were to be investigated. Such a hypothetical situation, where the country could be left without a functional government, was brought up by the Presidency to illustrate the risk of extreme violation of constitutional balances.
After considering the government's request, the Constitutional Court acted swiftly to avoid the immediate consequences of the conflict. On December 12, 2025, the panel of constitutional judges decided to temporarily suspend the execution of the GJKKO decision until the case was reviewed on its merits. This meant that, temporarily, the security measure “suspension from duty” became inapplicable.
As a result, Ms. Balluku was immediately reinstated to her position as Minister of Infrastructure and Energy. The Constitutional Court’s decision came as a relief to the government, but was met with concern by the judiciary. The Special Prosecution Office considered this intervention by the Constitutional Court to be a violation of the principle of separation of powers and a potential obstacle to the criminal investigation.
Immediately after Balluku's return to office, SPAK took new action to ensure the investigation continued unhindered. Within a few days, the special prosecutors addressed a formal request to the Assembly for authorization to apply an even more severe security measure against Ms. Balluku, her arrest.
Despite the opposition, civil society representatives and the European Commission, the Mandates and Immunities Council has not yet issued a decision on Balluk's immunity, leaving the issue of the arrest warrant pending. The Prime Minister himself, on February 9, during the meeting of the Socialist Party Parliamentary Group, refused to proceed with the removal of the mandate.
The Constitutional Court is "to blame"!
Following the institutional clash, on February 6, 2026 The Constitutional Court convened to examine and decide on the request of the Prime Minister regarding the conflict of competences between the executive and the GJKKO, as well as on the interpretation of Article 103 of the Constitution on the immunity of ministers. The Court unanimously considered that ministers are subject to the law and can be held criminally liable, but was divided into two positions regarding the need for parliamentary authorization for the measure of suspension from office. Due to the lack of the required majority, the request was dismissed. As a result, the suspension measure imposed on 12 December 2025 was lifted, temporarily putting an end to the institutional conflict, while the debate on the balance between criminal prosecution and the functioning of the executive branch remained open.
According to lawyer Ili Gërdupi, "because none of the justifications received the qualified majority of 5 votes, they are not considered binding on the Assembly and the majority."
He further emphasizes that the Constitutional Court should announce the reasoned decision, in order to have a clear overview of the approach of each group of judges. According to him, an adjustment of the procedure in accordance with the position of that group of judges that considered authorization by the Assembly necessary would increase the probability that this legal change would not be subsequently contested in the Constitutional Court.
The Prime Minister Himself reacted publicly announcing the conclusions of the meeting of the Socialist Parliamentary Group. According to Rama, the reinstatement of the suspension measure against Deputy Prime Minister Balluku has highlighted a serious constitutional and legal gap, which, according to him, paralyzes essential functions of the executive branch. He warned of legislative intervention to resolve the institutional impasse, arguing that non-delegated constitutional functions cannot be suspended without violating the institutions themselves.
On this point, Lawyer Gërdupi explains that "the legal change through an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code is possible to be implemented by Parliament. However, its implementation requires a special procedure, since it is a Code and not an ordinary law. To be approved, the change requires 84 votes, which means unanimity within the deputies of the Socialist Party and at least one additional vote from the opposition."
At the same time, Rama emphasized that the suspension only serves to continue the investigation by SPAK, while the government, according to him, will continue to unconditionally support the independence of the prosecution and its right to investigate, shifting the clash mainly to the political and legislative level.
Meanwhile, civil society organizations they again asked the Mandates Council to rise above and accept SPAK's request, emphasizing that parliamentary immunity is not a personal shield, but a functional guarantee, and any delay or political instrumentalization violates the principle of equality before the law and public trust in institutions.
Referring also to EU standards and chapters 23 and 24, the organizations emphasize that respecting constitutional procedures is an institutional obligation and a condition for strengthening the rule of law and the European integration process.acqj.al
