Constitutional Court rejects government's complaint about Balluk, how votes were divided

2026-02-06 21:46:13Aktualitet SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX
Belinda Balluku

The Constitutional Court today reviewed the request submitted by the government regarding the decision of the Constitutional Court, which in November 2025 decided to suspend Belinda Balluku from her duties as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Energy.

After the meeting that began at 11:00, it was decided to dismiss the government's appeal, as the judges voted 4 in favor and 4 against.

The GJKKO's decision to suspend Balluk was made at the request of SPAK, after it was officially named as a defendant for suspicions of legal violations in the tender procedures for the construction of the Llogara tunnel.

Prime Minister Edi Rama immediately reacted to this decision, considering it an excess of powers and interference in the executive branch.

Precisely on this argument, the head of government addressed the Constitutional Court, seeking a resolution to the institutional conflict created between the Prime Minister's Office and the Council of Ministers, on the one hand, and the GJKKO, on the other, regarding the right to suspend a member of the government cabinet.

The hearing attended by all parties took place on January 22, 2026.

Meanwhile, SPAK has taken another procedural step, sending to the Assembly (on December 16, 2025) a request to lift Belinda Balluku's parliamentary immunity.

Despite the fact that December 19th of last year was initially set as the date for the meeting of the Council on Mandates and Immunity, the socialist majority decided to postpone it, arguing that the decision of the Constitutional Court should be awaited first.

Belinda Balluku is being charged with alleged violations in the 190 million euro tender for the Llogara tunnel, while in parallel, seven other procurement procedures related to the construction of segments of the Grand Ring Road are being investigated.

According to SPAK, her continued tenure poses a risk to the investigation, as it could lead to the destruction of evidence or the exercise of pressure on witnesses.


Video