METAMORPHOSIS / “Help me in this evil hour, O Giant”: The Tall One becomes religious, prays to his portrait on the wall!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

The "Partizani" file is simply an alibi in the name of impunity

2026-11-11 12:51:00Pikëpamje SHKRUAR NGA YLLI MANJANI
The "Partizani" file is simply an alibi in the name of impunity
Star Manjani

We must be fair and just in our reasoning, regardless of our political sympathies or antipathies for the names involved. Justice cannot be just only when it hits people we don't like.

In fact, I have repeatedly argued that the "Partizani" dossier, at least in its publicly known narrative, is a forced legal construct, which belongs more to the political debate than to the criminal one.

Unfortunately, this approach has also damaged the new justice system itself, especially SPAK, by placing it at the center of the political vortex.

I recall that in the context of this case, Sali Berisha, the leader of the largest opposition party, was isolated for almost a year under house arrest. His son-in-law was also isolated with him, while the landowners and the builder were placed under criminal prosecution.

But what really happened, according to the known history of this property?

A group of private owners have requested and obtained the return of their property, after a long administrative and judicial process that has gone through several governments, not only that of Sali Berisha.

The land had a private origin and, if the legal conditions were met, its return was an obligation of the state, not a favor of the government.

The “Partizani” club was not the owner of the land. Moreover, the sports activity in that complex had been abandoned and its premises had long been occupied by families who had come to Tirana. So, the sports destination had been effectively lost, before it was legally changed.

Subsequently, the property was returned to the owners, the destroyed buildings were sold with pre-emption to the landowners, and the latter developed it into an urban area, through agreements with developers and the relevant permits.

This is the story in essence. So the property was not taken from one owner to be given to another. But the property was returned to its owners and then developed for construction.

Now, where does the crime lie?

Of course, it can be investigated whether there were legal violations, illegal favors or corruption during this process. But these must be proven concretely. It is not enough for one of the beneficiaries of the property to be the son-in-law of the prime minister at the time. 

The thesis that the son-in-law corrupts the father-in-law has no connection with legal logic. As much as we may not like it, we must accept the truth as it is. Family ties are not criminal evidence. Nor is the benefit from a property right automatically a product of corruption.

Even if a government decision has had an impact on accelerating the return of property, this does not in itself make the decision criminal. It must be proven that the law was violated, that power was exercised illegally, and that there is a concrete connection to the unjust gain.

Otherwise, we are criminalizing the exercise of a right solely because of the political or family identity of the beneficiary.

And this is unacceptable.

Do we want to investigate Sali Berisha? Okay! Let him be investigated for possible criminal responsibilities in 1997, for Gërdec or for January 21. If there is evidence and individual criminal responsibility, let him be tried.

But we cannot replace proof of a criminal offense with suspicion stemming from the groom's mother's surname of origin.

You cannot declare property restitution criminal just because you politically dislike the prime minister during whose government it was returned.

This process becomes even more problematic when the owners and builders are included in the criminal prosecution, creating the impression that they serve as a kind of procedural garnish for the main political accusation.

How can the exercise of property rights be transformed into a criminal element, without first proving that this right itself was acquired illegally?

Of course, ownership does not give you immunity from criminal prosecution. But neither can criminal prosecution treat ownership as suspicious just because it is economically advantageous.

This is precisely where the big problem with the "Partizani" file lies.

By legally forcing an issue that has an extraordinary political burden, justice risks producing the opposite effect to what it claims.

Instead of establishing clear criminal responsibilities, it creates space for political victimization. Instead of confronting Sali Berisha with concrete evidence, it places him at the center of a political battle with justice.

Thus, paradoxically, a process that claims to fight impunity can become the best political instrument of those who aim to punish. Impunity is not fought by building accusations at all costs. It is fought by proving concrete crimes, with concrete evidence, against concrete persons.

We may resent people. We may dislike them politically. We may even wish for their ultimate removal from public life. But that is not the job of criminal justice.

Justice does not exist to punish people we don't like, but to punish the crimes they are proven to have committed.

If we lose this distinction, then we are not fighting impunity. We are simply creating its alibi.

An alibi that gives justice the appearance of force, politics the possibility of victimization, and society the illusion that justice is being served.

Meanwhile, the fundamental question remains unanswered: What is the specific criminal offense that would not exist if one of the legal owners of the land were not Sali Berisha's son-in-law?!

We should accept this logic mostly for what we don't like. In my opinion, this makes you more fair in your reasoning.


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×