The meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs turned into another arena for political clashes, as Democratic Party MP Oerd Bylykbashi and Justice Minister Ulsi Manja traded sharp accusations over the protests, violence on the ground and the role of institutions. At the center of the debate was a question that remains without a clear public answer: is the use of force against protesters really being investigated, or is everything being covered up with political rhetoric?
Accusations of disproportionate violence and a call to investigate the chain of command
Bylykbashi made direct accusations against the State Police, claiming that during 15 days of protests, serious cases of violence against citizens and protesters had been recorded. He spoke of injuries, the use of rubber bullets and arrests that, according to him, were used as a form of intimidation against participation in the protests.
The opposition MP demanded that the investigation not remain focused only on officers on the ground, but extend to the entire police chain of command. This was one of the few concrete political points articulated in the debate, beyond the harsh language that dominated the clash.
The opposition’s political demands returned to the committee table
In the same intervention, Bylykbashi repeated the opposition’s political demands: the resignation of Prime Minister Edi Rama, the establishment of a caretaker government and the self-dissolution of Parliament. According to him, these are the ways to return decision-making to citizens through elections.
These positions were not part of the technical agenda of the discussion, but were brought into the debate as a direct political accusation against the majority. It was precisely this that pushed the clash from an institutional discussion on policing standards into a pure duel between the opposition and the government.
Manja goes on the counterattack and shifts the focus to violence against police
Justice Minister Ulsi Manja responded by sharply rejecting the opposition’s accusations and presenting the issue from the opposite angle. According to his version, State Police officers have also been subjected to violence during the protests, while the opposition is trying to use the clashes on the ground for political capital.
Manja accused the Democratic Party of sheltering people involved in acts of violence and described its headquarters as the base of their organization. He said every case of disproportionate use of force should be investigated by the competent bodies, but called on the opposition to also condemn violence against police, institutions and public and private property.
Harsh rhetoric, few institutional answers
Despite the strong tone from both sides, the debate left behind more political noise than institutional clarity. On one hand, the opposition is demanding an investigation into how the protest was managed; on the other, the government and its representatives are shifting the emphasis to violent acts against police and institutions.
What is fundamentally missing is verifiable transparency: how many cases are under investigation, who bears responsibility if excessive force is proven, and what standard is actually being applied on the ground. So far, the clash in the committee has shown more political polarization than public accountability.
The debate in the Laws Committee once again highlighted the gap between the opposition’s version and the official one regarding the protests and police interventions.
In the absence of full investigative facts being made public, accusations of disproportionate violence and counter-accusations of political instrumentalization remain part of a clash that is unfolding simultaneously in the streets and in the institutions.