What was supposed to be a routine accountability session for executive agencies turned into an open clash in Parliament, highlighting tensions between Parliament and institutions that respond late to official requests.
Clash during the parliamentary hearing
The debate was recorded between the head of the Energy Efficiency Agency, Ani Hasa, and the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Initiatives, Cooperation and Institutional Oversight, Fatmir Xhafaj, during a hearing on oversight of the activity of executive agencies.
At the center of the criticism was the institution’s relationship with Parliament, a point that highlighted not only procedural delays, but also the way Parliament’s requests are handled by state agencies.
Xhafaj: the responses came after 5 months
According to statements in the committee, Xhafaj described the Energy Efficiency Agency as the least correct institution in its dealings with Parliament, stressing that it had taken five months for responses to be returned.
He raised the suspicion that this behavior either shows a lack of institutional correctness or a failure to understand Parliament’s constitutional role. In a direct tone, he warned that the committee would draft its own report and forward it to the higher institutions.
The agency head’s defense
For his part, Ani Hasa presented a summary of the agency’s activity, stating that the law on energy efficiency is expected to be approved during this year.
He mentioned the work on installing chargers for electric vehicles, with a focus on connecting cities and border crossing areas, and also insisted that written responses to the committee’s questions had been returned.
Beyond the debate, questions over accountability
The clash in the committee once again brought to the surface a recurring problem in the relationship between executive institutions and Parliament: delayed responses and a weak standard of accountability.
When criticism comes from the very head of the oversight committee, the issue does not remain merely procedural. It touches on the real functioning of parliamentary oversight and the way public agencies interpret their obligation to answer before lawmakers.
The debate between the sides turned the session into a test of the seriousness of the relationship between Parliament and state agencies, at a time when demands for transparency and accountability often remain stronger on paper than in practice.