DREAM / The Prime Minister resigns and wakes up under the Parisian bridge!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

DP takes the agreement with the US to the Constitutional Court, Bardhi: SP violated the Constitution 7 times

2026-07-29 11:49:18Politikë SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX
DP takes the agreement with the US to the Constitutional Court, Bardhi: SP
Gazmend Bardhi

The Democratic Party has taken the confidential agreement with the US for a $302 million loan for the purchase of military equipment to the Constitutional Court.

"If the majority insisted, the DP group would subject it to constitutional control. This warning was not for political purposes."

It was the last attempt to stop the majority from including even the most important strategic relationship with the US in an unconstitutional procedure.

We demanded respect for constitutional deadlines, the right of deputies to be informed about what they would vote for.

"The opposition has made it clear that it supports this agreement in principle because it serves Albania's strategic interest to modernize the Armed Forces and fulfill the obligations stemming from Albania's membership in NATO. It should be a model of respect for the constitution, transparency and parliamentary debate," said Bardhi.

Gazmend Bardhi's Full Statement

During Monday's plenary session, on behalf of the Democratic Party Parliamentary Group, I officially warned that the procedure followed by the majority to approve the 302 million euro loan agreement between Albania and the United States of America for the purchase of military equipment was contrary to the Constitution. I also warned that, if the majority insisted on this path, the Democratic Party Parliamentary Group would subject it to the control of the Constitutional Court.

This warning was not about playing politics. It was a real and sincere warning. It was the last attempt to stop the parliamentary majority from involving Albania's most important strategic relationship with the United States in an unconstitutional procedure.

The opposition demanded throughout the session the respect of constitutional deadlines, the right of deputies to familiarize themselves with the act they were voting on, and the standards that the Constitutional Court itself had set just a few months ago in its decision on parliamentary procedures and the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly. We warned that such a procedure would not resolve the urgency claimed by the government, but would only prolong it, because it would make its constitutional control inevitable.

Even before the session, in institutional communications with the Speaker of the Assembly, we requested that this path not be followed. We requested that the deadlines be respected, that certain constitutional rights for the deputies not be denied, including the right to familiarize themselves with the draft law. To be honest to the end, I must affirm that, in these communications, we received understanding from the Speaker of the Assembly for the concern raised. Unfortunately, in the end, neither the Constitution, nor reason, nor understanding prevailed. Edi Rama's political order prevailed, once again turning the Assembly into a notary of the government's decisions.

The Democratic Party Parliamentary Group and the opposition as a whole have made it clear that they support this agreement in principle, because it serves Albania's strategic interest to increase defense investments, modernize the Armed Forces, and fulfill the obligations stemming from NATO membership. Precisely because it is the most important agreement of recent years with the United States in the field of defense, it should have been a model of respect for the Constitution, transparency, and parliamentary debate, not another example of using the parliamentary majority to violate it.

Unfortunately, we are in this situation because of the government's own failures. For years, the Albanian government, under the leadership of Edi Rama, failed to fulfill Albania's commitments to the Alliance. Instead of the minimum target of 2% of GDP for defense, real spending remained around 1.6%, placing Albania in a difficult position vis-à-vis its allies and even raising serious questions about the fulfillment of the commitments related to Albania's NATO membership.

It is not surprising that Edi Rama's government failed to fulfill Albania's obligations to NATO for years, because, for years in opposition, Edi Rama led protests against Albania's membership in NATO. Therefore, as the political force that made Albania's membership in the Atlantic Alliance possible, the Democratic Party does not accept lectures from anyone about relations with the United States or about commitment to NATO.

 

Precisely because these relations are vital to national security, we would never accept that the most important agreement of recent years with the United States in the field of defense would be approved in violation of the Constitution. This was also the essence of our position during the plenary session. Because the problem is not the agreement, which even today after its unconstitutional approval we do not know what it contains. The problem is the unconstitutional way in which the majority decided to approve the agreement.

 

For this reason, this is not a political dispute. It is a constitutional issue. It is an issue to protect the dignity of the Republic of Albania, its democratic institutions and the very essence of the Albanian state's image in the world.

Thomas Jefferson said: “One step beyond the limits set by the Constitution is enough for power to enter a territory without borders.”

 

Unfortunately, in this case too. this step was taken by the majority and the matter is made even more worrying by the fact that this happened just a few months after the Constitutional Court itself, in its decision on the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, had set clear standards for the use of the expedited procedure and the protection of the rights of deputies. Instead of implementing that February decision, the majority chose to repeat the same practice that the Court had just declared unconstitutional. Ignoring not only the deputies, the Assembly, but also the authority of the Constitutional Court.

For the DP parliamentary group, respecting the decisions of the Constitutional Court is not only about preserving the authority of this court, but above all with the very foundations on which the Parliamentary Republic was built.

The procedure followed for the approval of this agreement does not contain only an isolated violation. It also violates some of the fundamental principles on which constitutional parliamentarism functions: the right of deputies to be informed and to debate the acts they vote on, the constitutional deadlines for using the expedited procedure, and the legal certainty that should accompany the entry into force of an international agreement.

The Democratic Party Parliamentary Group has identified seven constitutional violations. Since this is a legal issue, I will try to explain them in simple language that is understandable to every citizen.

First violation: Deputies were denied their constitutional right to familiarize themselves with the agreement before voting. The Constitution and the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly oblige the Speaker of the Assembly, immediately after the submission of the draft law, to distribute the draft law, the text of the agreement and the accompanying report to the deputies. This procedure ensures that the deputies have the necessary time to review the agreement, to consult, to submit amendments and to decide responsibly how they will vote.

Second violation: Deputies were denied the constitutional right to control the use of public funds. The Constitution and the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly require that draft laws with financial effects be accompanied by a report justifying the financial expenditures. This report enables deputies to assess the impact of the draft law on the State Budget and to exercise their constitutional function of control over the administration of public finances. In this case, the report justifying the financial expenditures was not made available to deputies.

Third violation: Deputies were denied the right to freely exercise their parliamentary function, through parliamentary debate, the presentation of amendments and informed voting. Precisely to guarantee the effective exercise of these rights, the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly provide that the agenda be made public no later than two days before the plenary session. In the case of this agreement, this did not happen. The Speaker of the Assembly announced the change to the agenda on Monday and, on the same day, the majority reviewed and approved the agreement, invalidating the legal deadline of 48 hours for the announcement of the session’s agenda, which is defined as a mechanism that guarantees these rights of deputies. The Constitutional Court has also reasoned that failure to respect the two-day deadline for the agenda violates the principle of representative democracy.

Fourth violation: This relates to another very important deadline, expressly defined in the Constitution and clearly interpreted by the Constitutional Court, when it overturned the way the Assembly approved its Rules of Procedure. A case identical to the way the agreement with the US was approved on Monday. The practice followed for this agreement, just like the practice declared unconstitutional for the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, was carried out in an expedited procedure within 24 hours. In the decision that should have been binding on the Parliament, the Constitutional Court reasoned in February that failure to respect the minimum one-week deadline again violates the principle of representative democracy, denying MPs their constitutional rights.

Fifth violation: The agreement was treated as if Albania were in an extraordinary situation, with a need and urgency for the immediate entry into force of the law. In fact, none of these conditions existed. The government itself rejects the claim of urgency. The agreement was approved by it in principle on June 19 and signed on June 22. The Council of Ministers had more than a month to present the draft law according to the usual parliamentary procedure, but chose to keep it on the shelf for a month and, for reasons known only to Edi Rama, bring it to Parliament only on the last day of its proceedings. Under these conditions, one cannot speak of an objective urgency, but of an artificial urgency, created by the government itself. Likewise, Albania was not in a situation that justified the urgent need to equip itself with military equipment, since it was not facing any armed aggression or external threat.

Sixth violation: 1/5 of the Deputies have the right to initiate the Constitutional Court to review an agreement before its ratification. By introducing and approving the agreement within one day, the parliamentary procedure has practically stripped the parliamentary minority of its responsibility to exercise control of the constitutionality of the agreement in a timely manner, to initiate the Constitutional Court if it had only done so before ratification, and has practically stripped the Constitutional Court itself of the competence to assess the constitutionality of the agreement.

Seventh violation: The government has prevented the entry into force of the Loan Agreement with the United States. By declaring the agreement secret, it has prevented its publication in the Official Gazette. But the Constitution clearly stipulates that an international agreement ratified by law becomes part of the domestic legal system only after it is published in the Official Gazette. Under these conditions, the way this agreement has been treated creates a direct incompatibility with the Constitution, since an agreement that is not published cannot enter into force nor become part of the legal system of the Republic of Albania.

This is not a problem that had no solution. Albanian legislation provides mechanisms for the protection of classified information without violating the constitutional requirements for the entry into force of international agreements. The government chose not to use them. This is not simply a procedural error. It is a way of governing that makes the agreement itself attackable and exposes Albania to its strategic partner as a frivolous ally, not governed according to the Constitution, but ruled according to the political interest of the Prime Minister.

Precisely on these arguments, based on the Constitution of the Republic of Albania, on the binding decisions of the Constitutional Court and on its latest jurisprudence, the Parliamentary Group of the Democratic Party has just addressed the Constitutional Court to request constitutional control of the procedure followed by the Assembly. We have requested from the Constitutional Court the repeal of the ratification law and its suspension.

Our goal is to protect the constitutionality in the country and for the most important agreement between Albania and the United States in the field of national defense and security to be approved according to the Constitution, through a regular parliamentary procedure, in accordance with the standards that the Constitutional Court itself has set for the Assembly. If the Constitutional Court considers this matter as a priority, we can approve the agreement together, after familiarizing ourselves with its content, even in an extraordinary parliamentary session, fully respecting the Constitution and ensuring the full political support that such a strategic agreement deserves.

The alliance with the United States is not strengthened by denying and violating the Constitution. It is strengthened by respecting the rule of law, democratic institutions, and the standards that constitute the foundation of Western democracies. Albania needs the standard of the American Congress, not the standard of Taulant Balla.

Albania's strategic relations with the United States deserve much more than to be represented through Edi Rama's unconstitutional acts.


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×