The debate over Belinda Balluku’s case has returned to center stage, this time with a direct political accusation against SPAK. Gazment Bardhi claims that, after the worsening of the deputy prime minister’s criminal position, the Special Prosecution should have turned again to Parliament for authorization if it were applying the same standard used in other cases.
Bardhi calls for a second move by SPAK
The head of the Democratic Party’s parliamentary group is asking SPAK to submit to Parliament for a second time its request regarding Belinda Balluku’s immunity. According to him, if the accusations have become more serious, then a harsher security measure should also have been requested.
Bardhi linked this position to what he presents as a legal standard declared by the Special Prosecution itself, arguing that this standard is not being applied in Balluku’s case. SPAK’s first request for authorization to arrest her was rejected by Parliament in March.
Accusation of a double standard
In Bardhi’s version, the problem is not only procedural, but also tied to the way different senior officials are being treated. He claims that Balluku is being treated differently from other cases and that this amounts to a double standard within the same prosecution office.
According to him, the absence of a new request to Parliament should have been resolved back in June. Bardhi says there is no clear explanation for why SPAK has not taken this step, while raising doubts that the law is being applied with different scales depending on the political name under investigation.
Balluku at the center of the political clash
Bardhi went further, claiming that Prime Minister Edi Rama is using the Balluku case whenever he comes under public or political pressure. According to him, developments in this file have appeared at specific moments when protests or other scandals were in the spotlight.
He cited as examples the seizure of one villa and then the emergence of another case involving another villa, suggesting that such moves are being used to shift the public focus. These remain political claims by the opposition, without independent verification of any link between investigative developments and the agenda of the day.
Questions over the pace of the investigation
Bardhi’s statements bring back into focus a broader issue: how transparent and even is the standard followed by SPAK in cases involving powerful names in government. When an institution declares a practice to be its standard, but does not apply it equally in every case, it creates room for doubts and political instrumentalization.
So far, there has been no new official move by SPAK to approach Parliament in relation to Balluku. The clash remains at the level of political accusations, and public perception depends precisely on the lack of clarity institutions leave behind in such cases.
The case remains a direct test of how special justice treats high-ranking political figures.
If the standard is the same for everyone, then that must be visible not in statements, but in concrete decisions and procedures.