The head of the Democratic Party’s parliamentary group, Gazment Bardhi, has publicly renewed pressure on SPAK over the Belinda Balluku case, accusing justice institutions of delays and a lack of response. In his statement, Bardhi claims that the former deputy prime minister faces 14 criminal accusations, while continuing to remain free and exercise public functions.
The PD presents the case as a test of equality before the law
According to Bardhi, the situation is unacceptable, as an official against whom claims of serious criminal offenses are being made continues to take decisions with public impact. He is using this case to question the equal application of the law to officials in power.
Claims of 14 criminal offenses
In his reaction, Bardhi says the matter concerns 14 accusations: 2 for corruption, 2 for money laundering, 2 for concealment of assets, and 8 for violating equality in tenders. These remain political claims put forward by the opposition, while the responsibility for verification and any procedural action belongs to the justice institutions.
He insists that the accusations are serious enough to require an institutional response, not silence or delays, returning the debate to the standard by which cases involving senior political figures are handled.
Accusations of delays and two-speed justice
Bardhi claims that inaction in this case fuels the perception that justice does not move in the same way for everyone. According to him, when it comes to people connected to power, the pace of institutions changes and accountability is postponed.
Along these lines, he calls on SPAK to act without unjustified delays and without waiting, in his wording, for political signals. The statement comes as part of a broader political clash over the real independence of justice in cases involving the government and its officials.
The political message to SPAK and the government
Through this reaction, the opposition is once again placing SPAK under public scrutiny over the way it handles files with high political sensitivity. The essence of Bardhi’s accusation is that the law cannot function with exceptions, privileges, or double standards.
He concludes his reaction by stressing that no one should be above the law and that waiting, in his view, only adds to suspicions of a lack of institutional will to act.
So far, there has been no position cited in this reaction from SPAK or from Belinda Balluku herself regarding the claims raised publicly by Bardhi.
It is precisely the absence of a publicly articulated institutional response that the opposition is using to increase political pressure on the justice bodies.