Prime Minister Edi Rama has once again defended the way political appointments have been made in government, as he commented on SPAK investigations and accusations involving officials of the Socialist Party. In his version of the Arben Ahmetaj case, Rama said he had “invested in a carnival mask,” not in a figure who could be considered “a public asset to be trusted” in the full sense of the word.
Rama’s comment on Ahmetaj
During an interview on the podcast “Flasim,” Rama addressed former Deputy Prime Minister Arben Ahmetaj, who has long faced accusations and public confrontations with the ruling majority.
In his statement, the prime minister said that in that case he had “invested in a carnival mask.” According to him, when it turns out that the person in whom political investment was made is “tainted,” then what remains is a painful but factual situation, according to the version he presented.
What he said about SPAK case files
Rama also spoke about investigations involving names linked to the government and the Socialist Party, claiming that so far he has not seen “any hand in the state budget proven in court with facts.”
However, he acknowledged that in the case file brought by SPAK on the incinerators, there are, according to him, “some very obvious elements of abuse.” Here too, the head of government chose to place the emphasis on the lack of proof sealed in court, not on the political responsibility usually sought in such cases.
Message on accusations against officials
Along the same defensive line, Rama said that if he were to act only on the basis of accusations in deciding not to appoint or to dismiss someone, then, according to him, he would have to dismiss even himself “from morning to night.”
With this argument, the prime minister suggested that some of the accusations against his subordinates may be unfair, just as he claims happens with the accusations against him. His approach suggests that the political standard of responsibility remains conditioned on final judicial proof, even when investigations and criminal case files have raised strong public questions.
The statements come at a time when the relationship between the government and SPAK investigations remains at the center of public debate, especially on issues affecting the use of public money and the political filtering of appointments at the highest levels of power.
In essence, Rama’s message was clear: he accepts that there may have been an error of trust in certain individuals, but not that this automatically translates into direct political responsibility for the decision-making that elevated them to power.