A Fiks Fare broadcast brought prosecutors’ allegations of pressure against a defendant back into debate this week. The case involves procurement and suspected financial benefits, while decisions on restrictions during an investigation must be distinguished from a ruling on guilt.
Lexojeni këtë artikull në shqip
On 7 October, Fiks Fare published excerpts it presented as prosecutors’ statements to parliament’s Council on Rules, Mandates and Immunity concerning alleged pressure against Mirzeta Kashnica in the Belinda Balluku case. The material was published this week but referred to meetings on 19 December 2025 and 23 February 2026. It was therefore the publication of allegations made earlier, rather than a new court ruling.
Kashnica was herself a defendant in these proceedings, meaning someone against whom a charge had been brought. SPAK, Albania’s Special Prosecution Office, had listed her among the members of the committee that evaluated bids for the Llogara tunnel. Being a defendant does not mean a person has been found guilty.
In this article
Why the allegations of pressure matter
According to Fiks Fare, prosecutors referred to intercepted communications and records from 2025 to argue there was a risk of influencing Kashnica’s statements. The programme attributed to them allegations of threats and attempts to change her statements or her lawyer. These are prosecutors’ allegations relayed by the media.
The question here is whether evidence and people giving statements can be influenced during an investigation. That risk matters when a court decides on preventive measures, meaning temporary restrictions on a person during proceedings. It is assessed separately from whether that person committed the offence under investigation.
Balluku’s defence opposed a stricter measure at the meeting on 23 February. According to Report TV, lawyer Ardian Kalija asked the prosecution to substantiate the risk to the investigation or of his client leaving the country. He argued that she had complied with the suspension and surrendered her identity documents; this was the defence’s position in the February debate.
From the Llogara tender to the asset investigation
On 31 October 2025, SPAK announced the charge against Balluku of violating the equality of participants in public tenders or auctions, in collaboration with others. In plain terms, the charge concerned allegedly favouring bidders in the procedure for building the Llogara tunnel. In its announcement of 20 November, prosecutors alleged that Balluku and members of the evaluation committee had favoured the winning consortium of companies.
The procedure reopened on 22 June 2021 had a budget ceiling of around 18.97 billion lek excluding VAT, approximately €207 million. The budget ceiling is the maximum amount planned for the tender. That sum does not, on its own, establish proven financial damage or the value of a bribe.
In its announcement of 20 November, SPAK also included suspicion that the winner of lot 4 of Tirana’s Outer Ring Road had been predetermined. That tender had a budget ceiling of around 2.10 billion lek excluding VAT, approximately €22.9 million. On 16 December, prosecutors announced suspicions concerning seven Ring Road procedures, alongside the Llogara charge.
Euro equivalents use the 9 October 2026 exchange rate for reference.
On 4 June 2026, SPAK announced further suspicions of passive corruption and laundering the proceeds of crime, in collaboration with others. According to prosecutors, a property at the White Rocks resort in Gjilekë, Dhërmi, was suspected of being linked to an improper benefit in exchange for favouring an operator in an Albcontrol procurement procedure. SPAK also mentioned legal transactions suspected of being fictitious and intended to conceal the property’s origin and ownership.
Passive corruption here concerns a suspected benefit received by an official in exchange for preferential treatment; money laundering concerns hiding the origin of an unlawful benefit. The Special Court had placed the property under preventive seizure on 3 June. This is a measure that temporarily freezes the property during proceedings, rather than a finding of guilt.
What the court and parliament decided
On 19 November 2025, the Special Court against Corruption and Organised Crime, known as GJKKO, banned Balluku from leaving the country and suspended her from exercising her government duties. These measures were neither detention in prison nor house arrest. SPAK subsequently asked parliament to authorise her arrest.
On 12 March 2026, parliament declined that request. The decision addressed whether a move to a measure involving deprivation of liberty would be allowed. It did not declare Balluku innocent or discontinue the criminal case.
The Socialist majority said a stricter measure was unnecessary after Balluku’s departure from executive office. The Democratic minority called for approval, stressing the risk of interference with evidence. These were parliamentary positions on the prosecution’s request, rather than court rulings on the allegations.
This week’s publication returned attention to how the investigation is protected. Understanding the case means distinguishing an allegation from proof, a temporary measure from a sentence, and parliament’s decision from a court’s judgment. Until a final court judgment, Balluku and the other people subject to the proceedings are presumed innocent.
Updated 10 October 2026.