In this article
The initiative to amend the Code
Prime Minister Edi Rama has sparked a public discussion that, at first glance, appears technical:
Can a court suspend the Prime Minister from office?
The trigger was the Special Anti-Corruption Court’s decision to suspend Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku as a precautionary measure during a criminal investigation into abuses involving tenders.
The government responded by appealing to the Constitutional Court, arguing that the decision undermined the separation of powers and the functioning of government. But when the Constitutional Court failed to deliver a concrete ruling on the issue, leaving the Special Court against Corruption and Organised Crime (GJKKO) decision in force, the government took another step: it is amending the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Under the draft presented this week, suspension from office would no longer apply to the Prime Minister, ministers, the Deputy Prime Minister and other senior officials such as the President, the Ombudsman or the head of the Supreme State Audit Institution.
So the question is no longer purely legal. It is political and constitutional: does this initiative protect the institution or the individual?
Suspension during a criminal investigation
First, we should make clear that suspension is not a punishment. It does not declare anyone guilty. It is a temporary measure used by a court when it suspects that an official, by remaining in office, could intimidate witnesses, interfere with evidence or use power to obstruct the investigation.
The logic is simple: you are suspended not because you are guilty, but precisely because you hold power and could use it to influence the investigation.
The Prime Minister declared that this does not happen in Europe, that a prosecutor or judge cannot stop a minister from performing their duties.
Edi Rama: It was not enough that there is not a single case in Europe, in the history of democracy, not one, of a member of government being suspended by a prosecutor and a judge….
Of course, procedural safeguards for ministers exist in Western democracies: parliamentary authorisation, special courts, special procedures. But there is no principle that courts should have no means of restricting a minister or senior official during a criminal investigation.
This is a standard usually criticised in international reports on states with weak democracies, such as Russia and Turkey.
In a functioning democracy under the rule of law, political power is kept in check by the justice system. If the justice system cannot constrain power during an investigation, then justice becomes a formality and the slogan of equality before the law collapses for good.
The debate over the balance of powers
But what changes under the Rama government’s new law? A court may investigate, but it cannot strip the senior officials it is investigating of their power. Put simply, the Prime Minister is telling us that if he faces a criminal investigation tomorrow, he may not only choose not to resign; this legislative initiative will guarantee that he can carry on working.
The investigation into him may of course continue, but he will continue to lead the administration that hypothetically produces and holds the evidence against him.
This is not merely a matter of legal interpretation. It changes the balance of powers.
That is why the government is focusing the debate on the question: does a court have the right to suspend a minister? The question that should actually be asked is: should an official suspected of criminal offences continue to exercise their duties?