The clash over magistrates’ salaries has turned into an open institutional conflict, with the government trying to present itself as the party that respects the Constitutional Court’s decision while at the same time attacking the way its implementation is being sought. In a live appearance on Facebook, Edi Rama used harsh language toward the leaders of the judicial system, speaking of “arbitrariness,” “threats,” and a lack of institutional standards.
Rama’s third reaction on the same issue
After two earlier reactions on the X network, the prime minister again appeared publicly on the issue of judges’ and prosecutors’ salaries. This time, he described the atmosphere created by the clash between the branches of power as troubling, ugly, and vulgar.
The essence of his message was that the conflict is taking on dimensions that, according to the government’s version, damage not only the relationship between institutions but also the example that the justice system should set in public.
Criticism of the leadership of the judicial system
Rama placed the emphasis on the leadership structures of the system, which, according to him, should initially have opened a process of dialogue and consultation before taking steps with financial effects on the state budget.
He targeted the decision and order issued in the middle of the summer on salaries, claiming this was done without following other institutional channels. In essence, the head of government is contesting not necessarily only the demand itself, but the way its implementation has been imposed on the state treasury.
The government says it will implement the Constitutional Court’s decision
Despite the harsh tone, Rama said that the executive and the governing majority have no intention of failing to respect the Constitutional Court’s decision. According to him, the government will follow what it considers the proper path in responding to the salary request.
This suggests that the conflict has not been presented by the government as a refusal of the decision, but as opposition to the form of pressure to turn it immediately into financial execution. It is precisely here that the political battle over the narrative is being placed.
Accusations of pressure and threats against financial institutions
In his statement, Rama went further by speaking of threats against the finance minister and representatives of the treasury. He criticized the idea that, according to him, public money should be treated with the logic that “funds are opened and taken” without first passing through the filters of institutional reasoning.
The government’s political message is clear: the Constitutional Court’s decision is accepted as an obligation, but not every method of implementation will pass without public opposition. On the other hand, it remains essential to clarify institutionally where the independence of the judicial branch ends and where responsibility for the use of taxpayers’ money begins.
The clash between the government and the justice structures is moving beyond the debate over salaries and touching the very boundaries between the branches of power. At its core, the issue is not only how much magistrates will be paid, but how decisions affecting the public budget are made and who bears responsibility for them.
So far, the government is seeking to hold two positions at once: respect for the Constitution and rejection of any pressure it considers arbitrary. This makes the conflict more than administrative: a new test for the relationship between the justice system and political power.