The Socialist majority has pushed forward in the Laws Committee a package of amendments on the Bank of Albania that, in essence, give the Governor special protection from coercive measures and searches when criminal matters are linked to the exercise of the office. The initiative has also opened debate within the Socialist Party itself, with warnings that guarantees are being created that go beyond the usual institutional standard.
What was voted in committee
According to the version approved in committee, two articles of the current law on the Bank of Albania are amended, and it is envisaged that the Governor may not be detained or deprived of liberty through coercive measures for criminal offenses related to the exercise of the office.
It also provides for limits on personal searches and searches of the Governor’s residence, a point that has raised direct questions about the boundaries being placed on criminal investigations.
Reservations from within the majority
Socialist Damin Gjiknuri openly opposed the logic of the amendments, arguing that the law is creating guarantees that, in his view, no one else enjoys except in cases defined at the constitutional level.
At the core of his reservation was the concern that such protection treats the Governor as an exception to the rule, and that protection against abuse by the justice system should come from the courts, not from an additional filter written specifically into the law.
The drafters’ argument: the institution is protected, not the person
According to Zaçaj, the provision should not be read as immunity, but as a safeguarding mechanism for the independence of the Bank of Albania. He argued that any request for the Governor’s arrest should go through verification of substantial evidence and of a clear link between the criminal offense and the exercise of the office.
According to this interpretation, the aim is to ensure that the head of the central bank is not exposed to interference by another branch of power in a way that would undermine the exercise of the function. So, according to the official version of the draft’s defenders, the focus is on the institution’s independence and not on personal privilege.
Questions over criminal investigation
The head of the Laws Committee, Ulsi Manja, also raised concerns about the practical consequences that limits on personal and home searches could bring.
The question that emerged in committee was essential for any criminal proceeding: if the prosecution is restricted in these investigative tools, how will evidence be secured? This remains the most sensitive point of the draft, because this is where the claim of institutional independence collides with the need to ensure that an investigation does not become unenforceable.
The debate in the Laws Committee shows that even within the majority there is no calm over a provision that directly affects the balance between institutional independence and accountability before justice.
Whether this protection is a functional guarantee or immunity packaged under another name is the question the proposed amendments have left open.