
SPAK ended 2022 in the center of a scandal with accusations of concealment of evidence and investigation with double standards in the Elbasan incinerator file.
The denunciation of the journalist Adriatik Doçi in the first ten days of December against the prosecutors Ened Nakuçi and Klodian Braho strengthened the conviction of a considerable number of pessimistic citizens towards the justice reform.
Thelbi i reformës është ndëshkimi i atyre që quhen të paprekshëm, ose siç i quante ish-Ambasadori i SHBA në Tiranë, Donald Lu…’Peshqit e Mëdhenj’. Kështu deklaronte në 2016-n diplomati amerikan, duke garantuar se rrjeta ku do të binin peshqit e mëdhenj ishte Struktura e Posaçme Antikorrupsion, SPAK.
SPAK bëri tre vite tashmë. Për disa mund të jenë pak, por për të dhënë shembuj serioziteti në luftën kundër korrupsionit të zyrtarëve të nivelit të lartë koha ka dalë dhe ka tepruar.
A e ka kaluar SPAK testin? Me zhvillimet që ndodhën në fund të vitit të kaluar, e vështirë të thuhet po. Rasti në dosjen e inceneratorit të Elbasanit tregon se rrjeta e imët e SPAK-ut deri më tani duke se është e qëndisur vetëm për zyrtarë të nivelit të dytë, ose ish-zyrtarë.
Kur vjen puna te ata që Donald Lu i quante ‘Peshk i Madh’, rrjeta ose çahet, ose nuk hidhet fare. Ky është rasti i Arben Ahmetajt, ku sipas denoncimit të bërë në SPAK, dy prokurorët Klodian Braho dhe Ened Nakuçi kanë marrë të pandehur ish-drejtoren në Ministrinë e Infrastrukturës dhe anëtaren e vlerësimit të ofertave, Etleva Kondi pasi kanë siguruar prova e fatura se si kishte përfituar ish-zyrtarja nga inceneratorët.
Por, të njëjtët prokurorë akuzohen se nuk panë provat që ngrenë dyshimet se Arben Ahmetaj ka përfituar, po aq sa Etleva Kondi, mos edhe më shumë nëse do t’u referohemi akuzave të Sali Berishës, që e cilëson ish-ministrin si ‘strumbullar’ në dosjen e inceneratorëve.
The clues that lead to Ahmetaj were in the same devices where prosecutors Braho and Nakuçi found those of Etleva Kondi, but if the data about Etleva Kondi were taken into account and included in the file, those about Arben Ahmetaj did not become part of it.
The scandal then deepened with the attempt of two prosecutors through announcements to show that the investigations had not been closed, implying that Ahmetaj could be charged. However, both the file for the Elbasan incinerator and the one for Fier have been submitted to the court and in it not only the name of Arben Ahmetaj is not mentioned, but also the responsibility of the Ministry of Economy and Entrepreneurship that he headed at the time when two the concessions.
To deepen it even further, to the report of the journalist Adriatik Doçi against the two prosecutors Braho and Nakuçi, another SPAK prosecutor, Alfred Shehu, responded within 13 days by rejecting it. The reasoning given was through the words used by the prosecutors themselves, without making any verification whether the documents included in the report were evidence implicating Ahmetaj with the incinerators, or not.
The prosecutor cited the 'internal conviction' of his colleagues not to include these evidences in the file, or question their authenticity, and with the decision he made he spoke more like a judge.
On December 30, journalist Doçi appealed to the Special Anticorruption Court the decision to dismiss the report. However, the whole game developed within a period of 20 days left a bitter taste for Albanians regarding the work of SPAK.
This should be the challenge of the Special Prosecutor's Office for 2023. To avoid accusations of handling evidence with double standards and to include the 'big fish' in its net. This requires prosecutors with integrity, who really see the evidence and not the names that are hidden behind this evidence, as Altin Dumani stated before the High Prosecution Council before he was elected head of SPAK.
© Copyright Vox News
This article is exclusive to Vox News, it is copyrighted according to Law No. 35/2016, "On copyright and related rights". The article can be republished by other media only by citing Vox News and placing the source link at the end, otherwise any violator will be held responsible according to Article 178 of Law No. 35/2016.