New details have emerged from the hearing at the Special Court against Corruption and Organized Crime (GJKKO) in the case against members of Laert Haxhiu’s group, where singer Rigels Rajku, known as Noizy, was questioned as a witness. In his testimony, he spoke about the placement of explosives at his business in June 2022, making accusations and claims that, according to what was reported in the courtroom, relate to Kleviol Ahmeti and clashes between them.
What Noizy said about the night of the blast
According to the testimony given in court, Noizy said he was asleep at the time of the explosion and was alerted by his father.
“I was asleep, the explosion woke me up. My dad calls me, tells me what happened. I told him I don’t want to go out because people will see me,” he said during the hearing.
When asked by prosecutors about the function of the premises where the blast occurred, he replied briefly that it was used to sell clothes and generate income.
Accusation in court: “I knew who did it”
In the strongest part of his testimony, the singer claimed that he knew who was behind the placement of the explosive.
According to him, the person he named, Kleviol Ahmeti, had himself said on social media that the explosive had been planted on Laert Haxhiu’s orders. In the same testimony, Noizy also claimed there had been another incident close in time when, according to him, explosives had been placed in a pizza box, but the fuse had remained unlit.
These are claims made in the courtroom and not independently verified facts through a final judicial ruling.
The clash with Kleviol Ahmeti and the alleged motive
Noizy linked the incident to a conflict that had taken place a day earlier. According to his version, Kleviol Ahmeti had gone to his business with several people for a “clarification,” had insulted the staff and Noizy himself, and the situation had then escalated into a physical confrontation.
According to the singer’s testimony, the explosion happened after that clash. He also claimed that the person he mentioned later made statements on TikTok that, according to Noizy, implicated himself.
Asked in court about the motive, he gave a direct explanation, claiming that the conflict had lasted for years and that everything was being done “for fame.”
The court’s questions and statements about another incident
During the hearing, the court asked where he had seen the information about Kleviol Ahmeti and on what basis the motive he mentioned was built.
In response, Noizy said that within 24 hours the person in question had spoken about it himself on social media. He added another claim: that there is an open case over the burning of his car and that the person who carried it out had admitted doing so in exchange for a payment of 600 euros.
At the end of the statements reported from the hearing, the singer appeared to express dissatisfaction with having to repeat his testimony, asking whether he would again be needed in court.
The hearing at GJKKO highlighted not only the witness’s version of events, but also how conflicts that begin outside institutions end up in serious criminal case files.
It remains for the claims made in court to be weighed in the judicial process, where the distinction between a public statement and legal evidence becomes decisive.