FLASH
Shkruar nga Mero Baze
The candidates for SPAK chairman seemed like stars compared to the KLP members who would vote for them...
The process of selecting the head of SPAK revealed one of the problems of the Justice Reform: the false institutions that have been created and that are in charge of a process far from their professional, intellectual and integrity level that is required.
The candidates for the chairmanship of SPAK seemed like stars in comparison to the KLP members who would vote for them. Even though there were many differences between them, even though it was clear who was a professional who spoke about professional prosecution procedures in relation to evidence and investigation, and who spoke with slogans, they were still far above those who asked questions.
When you think that a body like the KLP will vote for someone who it seemed the UN Security Council had gathered to supervise, you should have the expectation that one of them will dare to ask a professional question: to talk about the quality of the investigation, the role of evidence in initiating criminal proceedings, preliminary arrests, the loss of cases in Strasbourg and the non-completion of most of the cases initiated; about all the problems that have accompanied SPAK in its first mandate, a mandate that is undoubtedly successful, but with problems that if deepened could blow it up.
The candidates themselves were more inclined to talk about these problems than the members of the KLP. Many of them seemed to be talking about their own troubles. One asked “would they help if there was a problem in SPAK?”, and she asked this question to everyone, as if they were stupid enough to say: “yes, yes, we will help you, we will break the law”. Another asked how all this “success” could be explained, and others asked banal questions.
This public hearing, in fact, is one of those useful things that should be done to understand to whom we have entrusted justice.
The majority of the KLP seemed captured by SPAK or servile to SPAK, essentially destroying the role of an institution that should select among the best of the candidates.
Imagine if these trials were broadcast live, especially anti-corruption trials, to understand how the products of these institutions are investigated and judged.
I am even more unclear about how the ambassadors experienced this quality of questions for about 7 hours, even though it seemed obvious that there was no problem with the candidate, but with the spectacle. And since the candidate was safe, all that care for the spectacle seems to have gone to waste. In addition to failing as a spectacle due to the quality of the KLP, it also produced another problem: it created the impression that the ambassadors were there.
They actually seem to decide. In reality, the banal problem of every member of the KLP in relation to SPAK, or to the government, has been decided. The ambassadors can only serve as an alibi for any nonsense that may occur in the work of SPAK. They have simply created for the new chairman of SPAK and the members of the KLP the alibi that “they” made the decisions, so if they are wrong, they are not to blame, because “they chose the ambassadors”. But the work will be done by those who saw with our eyes and heard with our ears.
Lini një Përgjigje