The debate over salaries in the justice system has returned to the center of attention after Prime Minister Edi Rama again reacted in strong terms to a statement attributed to a judge. In the version made public by the head of government, the idea that salary increases should be supported by funds that the Special Court Against Corruption and Organized Crime (GJKKO) confiscates from organized crime was described as not simply unacceptable, but as an indication of a serious misunderstanding of how the state functions.
Rama’s second reaction on judges’ salaries
According to the statement published by Rama, a judge said that for salary increases, “there is as much money as GJKKO confiscates every year from organized crime.” This has triggered another public clash between the government and voices from the justice system over the relationship between pay, powers and budgetary resources.
Rama openly opposed this logic, saying that a judge “can never speak like this” and describing the approach as “a disaster in itself because of the chilling degree of ignorance” about how the state functions. The rhetoric used shows that the government is choosing to treat the issue not only as a financial debate, but also as a political and institutional confrontation with the judiciary.
Polemic over confiscated money and the public budget
At the heart of his reaction, Rama rejects the idea that confiscated funds can be treated as a kind of direct source for judges’ salaries. According to him, it is unacceptable for judges to ask for money from the treasury on the grounds that it was “collected” by them.
He extended the argument further with comparisons to other branches of the state administration, mentioning customs officers, tax officials, police officers and inspectors. According to Rama, if each institution were to claim its own share of the revenue collected for the state, the very logic of the public budget and its distribution would be undermined.
Comparison with teachers, doctors and military personnel
The prime minister also linked his opposition to the inequalities that, according to the government, would be created if such a demand were accepted. He mentioned teachers, doctors, military personnel and other categories of public service, raising the question of what would remain for them if judges were treated under an entirely different standard.
According to the figures cited by him, an entry-level judge would benefit 3.8 times more than a teacher, doctor or member of the military, or about 280% higher pay. This is the interpretation presented by Rama in the debate, while a full institutional clarification is still lacking on the legal and financial basis of the demands raised by the judges.
A debate that goes beyond salaries
The latest clash shows that the issue of salaries in the justice system is not being discussed only as an administrative problem. It is turning into a test of the relationship between the executive branch and the judicial system, at a time when the independence of institutions and the use of public money remain sensitive issues.
So far, the government has issued a strong political rejection of this idea. What is missing is a fuller public and institutional debate on the limits of demands within the justice system, on how salaries are built in the public sector, and on the standards that should apply equally across the entire state system.
Beyond the harsh tones, the clash has once again brought to the fore an old question: who sets the line between the independence of justice and accountability for public money.
In the absence of broader institutional clarification, the debate risks remaining trapped between political rhetoric and fragmented reactions from the justice system.