" For the next 15 years, the current head of the KLP, Alfred Balla, cannot exercise the function of a prosecutor, judge, member of the KLP, the KLJ, or the High Inspector of Justice, " this was the decision he took a few days ago The Special Board of Appeal, which decided to accept the appeal made by the Public Commissioner against the decision of the KPK against Balla, that in 2023 decided to terminate the vetting process against Balla without a final decision.
According to the Public Commissioner, the vetting against Balla should be terminated, but he should not have the right to exercise the functions of prosecutor, judge or member of the KLP and KLJ in the following 15 years.
In relation to this issue, Alfred Balla has reacted again, who through a press release clarifies that he is still in office as chairman of the KLP, giving the constitutional arguments that keep him still in this office.
Press release of Alfred Balla , currently serving as chairman of the KLP :
Based on the interest of journalists and the public after the KPA decision, I personally need to clarify; Based on the fact that the KLP had no scheduled meeting for decision-making this week or next week; The fact that 9 members of the Council have so far been on a work visit abroad; It was not necessary and feasible to meet the relevant Commission and the Council urgently.
On the other hand, in the analysis of the content of the decision of the KPA (abbreviation as it has not yet been fully disclosed) made available, I estimate that: It did not analyze and prove facts that made my election as a non-magistrate member of the KLP questionable , to have room to apply Article 149/bi of the Constitution. Anyway, a meeting of the Commission and the Council is planned next week and this problem will be analyzed and evaluated by the High Council of Prosecution itself.
I want to emphasize that my 5-year constitutional mandate has ended and I am staying in office, due to the constitutional provision, until the appointment of the person who will replace me.
This explanation is necessary, in order not to create abusive situations, referring to the decision of the KPA and the effect it has on another constitutional body, as it is not in the interest of the public.