Corruption in Albania is not an abstract concept. It is a lived reality for millions of citizens who struggle daily with low wages, poor public services, mass emigration, and a political elite that appears untouchable. In this context, every judicial decision involving high-ranking officials carries enormous weight. The recent decision to reinstate Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Energy Belinda Balluku is one such case—one that has ignited public outrage and deepened mistrust in Albania’s justice system.
 |
| Photo of Belinda Balluku and in the background the building of the Constitutional Court of Albania (montage) |
At the heart of this controversy lies a clear and troubling fact: five judges voted in favor of restoring Balluku to her duties, while three judges dissented, warning that the legal conditions for such a decision were not met. This was not a technical or neutral ruling. It was a political decision with judicial clothing, one that directly affects Albania’s fight against corruption and the credibility of its institutions.
What the Majority Decided—and Why It Matters
According to the majority’s reasoning, the continued suspension of Belinda Balluku posed a risk to “state interests” and could interfere with the constitutional functioning of the executive branch. The five judges argued that enforcing the decisions of the Special Court against Corruption and Organized Crime (GJKKO), which had imposed the preventive measure of suspension from public office, could cause serious consequences for the state.
This argument is deeply problematic.
Albania’s Constitution and anti-corruption laws were designed precisely to ensure that no individual, regardless of rank, is indispensable. When five judges conclude that suspending one minister endangers the state itself, they implicitly declare that institutions are weaker than individuals. This logic runs directly against democratic principles and reinforces the culture of impunity that has plagued Albania for decades.
The Five Judges: A Vote With Heavy Consequences
While the court’s announcement emphasized procedure and legal framing, it is essential to focus on responsibility. Five judges consciously voted to prioritize political continuity over judicial integrity. Their vote sent a clear message: in Albania, powerful officials may still receive special treatment when “state interest” is invoked.
This is not a minor detail. History has shown that vague concepts such as “state interest” are often used in Albania to justify corruption, abuse of power, and the silencing of accountability. By accepting this argument, the majority effectively weakened the authority of GJKKO and undermined public confidence in the judiciary’s independence.
The Minority Opinion: A Voice of Legal Reason
In stark contrast, the three dissenting judges presented a far more grounded and legally consistent argument. They emphasized that the conditions set out in Article 45 of the Organic Law of the Court were not fulfilled, particularly the requirement for irreparable and severe consequences.
The minority correctly pointed out that Albania’s Council of Ministers is a collegial body, not a one-person institution. Decisions are taken collectively, by majority vote. Therefore, the suspension of one minister—even a deputy prime minister—does not paralyze the government or place the state at risk.
Moreover, the dissent highlighted a critical issue: the applicant failed to demonstrate that there were no alternative, less harmful measures available. This is a cornerstone of proportional justice, and ignoring it sets a dangerous precedent.
A Broader Pattern of Institutional Protection
This decision cannot be viewed in isolation. Albania has repeatedly witnessed cases where judges, prosecutors, or institutions intervene in ways that protect political elites rather than the public interest. The restoration of Belinda Balluku fits into a broader pattern where accountability mechanisms appear strong on paper but weak in practice.
For ordinary Albanians—especially those who have left the country or are planning to do so—this ruling reinforces a painful belief: justice is selective. When five judges can override anti-corruption measures by invoking abstract state interests, the rule of law becomes negotiable.
Public Interest vs. Political Stability
The Constitutional Court justified sending the case to a public plenary hearing due to its “high public interest,” calling in SPAK, GJKKO, Parliament, and the President as interested parties. While transparency is welcome, it does not erase the damage already done.
True public interest lies in strengthening anti-corruption efforts, not weakening them. It lies in proving that Albania’s justice reform is real, not symbolic. And it certainly does not lie in shielding ministers from legal consequences because their absence might inconvenience the executive.
Conclusion: A Defining Moment for Albania
This case represents a defining moment for Albania’s judiciary. The names and responsibilities of the five judges who voted for Balluku’s reinstatement will remain linked to a decision widely perceived as contrary to the national interest. Equally, the three dissenting judges deserve recognition for defending legal standards and institutional logic.
For Albanians, both inside and outside the country, the message is clear: the fight against corruption is far from over. And as long as judicial decisions continue to favor political power over accountability, public trust will continue to erode.
Albania does not suffer from a lack of laws. It suffers from a lack of courage to apply them equally.