The start of the plenary session in Parliament was met with objections from the opposition, which raised concerns about limiting the participation of lawmakers who were simultaneously attending the Laws Committee. The majority, through Niko Peleshi’s management of the session, rejected that claim and continued the proceedings.
PD objections in the chamber
When Peleshi opened the session and gave the floor to Socialist MP Klevis Jahaj, objections could be heard in the chamber from PD lawmakers.
At the center of the debate was the fact that the Laws Committee meeting was continuing at the same time, which, according to the opposition, created an obstacle to the presence of some members in the session.
Bardhi: Their right to take part is being denied
PD parliamentary group leader Gazment Bardhi objected to the start of proceedings under these conditions.
According to him, with the committee meeting continuing in parallel, members who were there were being denied the right to take part in the plenary session.
Peleshi did not accept postponing the session
From the Parliament leadership, Niko Peleshi maintained the position that the two agendas were unrelated and that the session could continue as normal.
According to his version, the parliamentary session takes precedence over committee meetings, and for that reason there were no grounds to move it.
A procedural debate with political weight
The clash once again highlighted the tension between the majority and the opposition over how parliamentary work is organized and how much real space lawmakers are given to participate in all forums of which they are members.
Even when presented as a procedural debate, the issue directly affects the functioning of Parliament and the standard of representation, especially when institutional agendas overlap.
The debate unfolded in the opening moments of the session, with the PD calling for the process not to begin before the Laws Committee meeting had concluded, while Peleshi insisted the proceedings should continue.
The incident adds another episode to the repeated clashes over parliamentary procedures, where interpretation of the rules often remains the subject of political conflict.