Another politically charged hearing in the case against Ilir Meta and Monika Kryemadhi highlighted not only the clash with SPAK, but also uncomfortable questions about how the case has been investigated. At the center of the debate this time were communications between Kryemadhi and Edi Rama, which the former MP used to request that the prime minister be heard as a witness.
Kryemadhi challenges the accusation and raises questions about the investigation
Monika Kryemadhi presented her objections to the accusation by SPAK, which has concluded that she and Ilir Meta influenced the optical fibers agreement in favor of Ardian Shatku.
According to her version, the text message and email communications were administrative and not such as to support criminal suspicions. By presenting in court a communication with Edi Rama, she also raised the question of why the prime minister had not been questioned earlier by prosecutors and requested that he be called as a witness.
Debate over the messages with Rama
While speaking to journalists, Kryemadhi also commented on the messages in which Rama addresses her as “dear,” downplaying their content and saying that this was not where the essence of the case lay.
She added that her clashes with Rama had also continued, in her view, over other issues such as the mining law, and said that “my dear will come as a witness,” referring to the request for the prime minister to appear in court.
The accusation described as political, prosecutors’ deductions disputed
Kryemadhi described the prosecutors’ findings as deductions and argued that the messages with former officials had been misinterpreted by the accusation. Along the same lines, she also defended Pirro Xhixho and Ilir Meta, claiming that they had no authority in this process.
According to her, to clarify the circumstances, Ardian Shatku, Edmond Haxhinasto, Milena Harito and Albana Shtylla should also be heard as witnesses. Kryemadhi defined the entire issue not as procedural, but political.
Meta, the rejected request and claims of a plot
In the same hearing, the court again rejected Ilir Meta’s request to leave the glass cage and sit in the courtroom next to his lawyer. Meta stated that he had been against monopolies and that, according to him, he had no need to seek favors from anyone.
Claims of a political and international background to the case also resurfaced in the debate. According to statements in the courtroom, there was talk of an “international plot,” while Meta’s lawyer asked that the version presented by Kryemadhi on the optical fibers be taken into consideration for the former president’s innocence and that she be questioned as a witness.
Proceedings postponed until September
Meta also backed his former wife on the issue of the seizure of her phone, claiming that the measure had been carried out in violation of procedure, at a time when she was an MP.
Like the trial of the three other defendants under abbreviated procedure, the ordinary trial against Meta and Kryemadhi has also been postponed. The next hearing has been scheduled for September 10.
The hearing left behind more questions than clarifications: from the request to summon the prime minister as a witness, to the way private communications have been interpreted in a case with high political weight.
The clash in the courtroom is pushing even further a process that, beyond the criminal accusations, is unfolding under the shadow of an open conflict between politics and justice.