Although the socialists view the resolution of Olta Xhaçka’s mandate saga through the Venice Commission, the opposition once again brought it up for debate at the Conference of Presidents.
During this conference, opposition representatives directed accusations at the Speaker of Parliament, Elisa Spiropali, alleging that she had undermined the Constitutional Court.
“We have referred to the constitution and justice regarding Olta Xhaçka’s mandate,” stated Gazment Bardhi, the chairman of the PD parliamentary group. “You have denied us this right and have disregarded the decisions of the Constitutional Court.”
According to Gazment Bardhi, the Venice Commission is an advisory body and does not have binding effects.
His socialist counterpart, Niko Peleshi, told the Conference of Presidents, “Of course, we have implemented the decision of the Constitutional Court by bringing the mandate to the session.”
Further, Niko Peleshi is quoted as saying: “We believe that an opinion from the Venice Commission would be beneficial for all of us, especially in a situation of conflict between two rights: the discretion of deputies to express their free will in the session and the obligation to implement the decision of the Constitutional Court.”
The debate also involved Ina Zhupa, the chair of the parliamentary media committee.
“You are dragging the issue of Xhaçka’s mandate along. There cannot be an opinion on the decision of the Constitutional Court. Opinions are given before or during the review, not after the Court has expressed its stance. You have undone the Constitutional Court,” she is quoted as declaring.
Peleshi responded: “Of course, we have implemented the decision of the Constitutional Court by bringing the mandate to the session. We have fulfilled all obligations; it is not just about the mandate of one deputy, but it is necessary to clarify all potential future cases. We believe that an opinion from the Venice Commission will benefit us all, especially in a situation of conflict between two rights: the discretion of deputies to express their free will in the session and the obligation to implement the decision of the Constitutional Court. This clarity will benefit us and will also be useful to you.”
Bardhi: “Madam Speaker, you personally decided to ignore the decisions of the Constitutional Court. You are the second speaker who has chosen to undermine the Constitutional Court, thereby also damaging the coexistence with the opposition. We have referred to the constitution and justice regarding Olta Xhaçka’s mandate. You have denied us this right and have disregarded the decisions of the Constitutional Court. The Venice Commission is an advisory body, and you know very well that it does not have binding effects. Your behavior undermines all your propaganda that you are supposedly constructive and open. This is propaganda because your actions are preventing us from fulfilling our duties. It has never happened that the parliament does not implement a decision of the Constitutional Court. The Court requested that you approve it quickly as there is no time available. Your practice of supposedly consulting the Venice Commission aims to save the mandate through procedure. This is not about the individual; for us, one Xhaçka goes and another comes. It is about constitutional principles.”
Tabaku: “Dear colleagues, Ms. Xhaçka is one of our colleagues. We are discussing the principle, not Ms. Xhaçka’s name. In 2010, every progress report stated that the PD government did not respect a decision of the Constitutional Court, and now we are talking about 9 other decisions that the government has not implemented, setting a dangerous precedent. We are not discussing whether there was a conflict of interest or not; we think there was, you don’t, but we leave it to the court to decide. However, if we use our vote to protect ourselves, we are sending a wrong message outside this hall.
We have sent the justice reform to Venice, a member of the Constitutional Court has gone there, and cases have been judged in Venice. We need to abandon political protection. If I were in your position, I would not want any political shield; let the Constitutional Court decide.
Why didn’t you send it to the Venice Commission earlier? Why is this happening for the first time now and not earlier? The standard set by the Constitutional Court should not be undermined.
We do not take pleasure in discussing this issue, nor in speaking against one side or the other, but we are discussing this matter on principle. We need to speak on principle and implement, on principle, the decisions of the Constitutional Court.”
Ina Zhupa: “You are dragging the issue of Xhaçka’s mandate along a path of delay. There cannot be an opinion on the decision of the Constitutional Court. Opinions are given before or during the review; you cannot seek an opinion after the Court has already spoken. You have undone the Constitutional Court.
EDITED BY:
“KORÇA BOOM”