Questions over the tools used in protests and over any foreign influence in the police returned to Parliament, this time with a direct clash between the opposition and law enforcement leaders. At the Committee on Internal Affairs and Defense, MP Erald Kapri sought clarification about a so-called acoustic cannon and the possible presence of experts from Serbia, while State Police Director General Skënder Hita rejected both claims.
Questions raised in the committee
Kapri asked whether the State Police has an acoustic cannon at its disposal, a device which, according to him, has been reported in the media as having arrived in Albania and which is used to disperse protesters through loud noise.
The MP raised another sensitive point as well: whether Albanian officers have been assisted or trained in protest management by experts coming from Serbia. The question comes amid a climate of public mistrust over how gatherings are managed and over the transparency of security institutions.
Police response: total denial
State Police Director Skënder Hita categorically denied both. According to the official version, there is no acoustic cannon in Albania, and no foreign police employee has taken part in protest management or in giving suggestions about it.
Hita said the device mentioned is not present and insisted that the claims raised in the committee do not stand. He also added that, according to the official statistics he cited at the meeting, no protester ended up in hospital.
Çuçi intervenes and defends the official line
Committee chairman Bledi Çuçi also intervened in the debate, describing Kapri’s questions as unconfirmed information. He argued that the means used by the State Police are permitted under Western manuals for dealing with violent protests and that there is nothing unlawful about them.
On the budget issue, Çuçi said that not a single lek from public funds had been spent on the elements mentioned in the debate, referring to the clarification given by the police director. He suggested that any further request for information be made in writing.
A debate that still leaves room for questions
Although the Police denial was unequivocal, the discussion in the committee showed that concerns about the means used against protests have not been settled. When clarifications are limited to political and administrative statements, without documents made public in the same session, room for doubt remains.
At the end of the debate, cooperation among NATO countries on security issues was also emphasized. However, that did not fully answer the concrete questions raised about the way protests are managed and the level of transparency within law enforcement structures.
The clash in the committee shifted attention to a broader issue: how transparent the state is when asked about crowd-control tools and any foreign assistance in the field of security.
In the absence of evidence presented publicly during the session, two versions remain facing each other: the doubts raised by the opposition and the full denial by the State Police.