The court hearing against former president Ilir Meta and Monika Kryemadhi has begun, with both present in the courtroom. From the very first developments, the focus shifted to the way the prosecution has built the case file, as Kryemadhi openly challenged the interpretation of the communications and evidence used by SPAK.
Kryemadhi challenges the prosecution at the start of the hearing
During the hearing, Monika Kryemadhi continued her objections to the prosecution by analyzing the communications and documents included in the case file. According to her, some of the materials used by the prosecution have been taken out of context and do not prove interference or favoritism.
She argued that some messages and emails are being interpreted in a one-sided way by SPAK, while insisting that the documents, according to her version, do not show political orders or pressure to favor the company Unifi.
Debate over messages, emails and context
Several communications that the prosecution considers important to the case were discussed in the courtroom. Kryemadhi opposed this reading, claiming that the cited materials show no political order and that specific parts were taken in isolation from a broader exchange.
She also raised questions about how certain contacts on her phone were handled, casting doubt on the completeness of the checks carried out by the prosecution. In her argument, Kryemadhi said the documents support the thesis that communications with investors were being followed by other parties and not through her intervention.
The court sets limits on the discussion in the courtroom
The hearing was also marked by a debate between Kryemadhi and the court, after the latter requested that the discussion be limited to facts directly related to the subject of the trial. The court reminded her that not every communication found on personal devices could be addressed, but only materials connected to the investigation.
This moment also showed one of the main points of conflict in the proceedings: how much of the content of the communications should be viewed in fragments and how much should be read in full in order to understand whether or not there are elements supporting the prosecution.
SPAK in court, defense claims the file falls apart page by page
One of the prosecutors in the case, Sotir Kllapi, was also present at the hearing. Facing the prosecution’s position, Kryemadhi declared that she is analyzing the file in detail and that, according to her, every day she finds elements that undermine the case.
Her claim remains part of the defense line and not a proven conclusion at this stage of the proceedings. However, the early clash over how the evidence has been read suggests that the main battle at trial will take place precisely over the interpretation of the SPAK file.
The process has thus entered a phase where not only the accusations, but also the way the evidence was built and presented, are being placed at the center of the debate in the courtroom.
For the moment, what emerged clearly from the first hearing is the sharp clash between the prosecution’s version and the defense’s objections over the context, validity and real weight of the communications included in the case file.