FLASH
Shkruar nga Arben Llangozi
If ILD and Metani do not respond with an investigation and measures, but with attacks on the media, then they are showing that they are more defenders of the status quo than guarantors of justice.
"Artur Metani's latest exploits continue to shock the justice scene, where he not only avoids the responsibilities of controlling and investigating magistrates, but also takes them to his defense with surprising dedication.
"Instead of being the voice of citizens and a guarantor of transparency, Metani seems to have become the most vocal advocate for magistrates who fall under suspicion, turning his office into a bitter farce for justice."
In his latest speech, Artur Metani, in his capacity as head of the High Inspectorate of Justice (ILD), mentioned “media pressures” as one of the factors that, according to him, threaten the independence of the judiciary. He said, “Media pressures, often driven by political or economic interests, damage the image of the magistrate and the citizens’ trust in justice, so the ILD must protect the system from external attacks.”
But the legal and moral duty of Mr. Metani and the ILD is completely different, they must initiate in-depth and impartial investigations after every media denunciation that raises suspicions of illegal or incriminating actions by magistrates. Not to protect magistrates from those denunciations, nor to consider them "pressure", but to treat them as important signals that require concrete responses.
The media and investigative journalists are the voice of the public, exercising the indisputable right to be informed and to demand accountability from the judicial branch.
Their denunciations are often a call for justice and transparency, not an attack on the system. If ILD and Metani do not respond with investigation and measures, but with attacks on the media, then they are showing that they are more defenders of the status quo than guarantors of justice.
The public has the right to know the truth, and journalists have a sacred duty to bring it to light. When magistrates are denounced for incriminating actions, the ILD's first response should be to launch immediate investigations, and not to attack journalists or attempt to undermine trust in them.
Ultimately, the ILD is not a shield for magistrates, but a mechanism of control and punishment, ensuring that no one is above the law. If this responsibility is ignored or postponed, then the ILD and Albania's judiciary are betraying its citizens and the ideals of democracy.
Instead of creating a climate of fear towards the media, Mr. Metani should understand and respect the extraordinary role that the media plays in protecting the public interest and strengthening justice. Only if media complaints are treated seriously and followed by independent investigations, will justice be able to restore its trust and integrity.
Artur Metani must give a public account for the unacceptable delays that the High Inspectorate of Justice has committed under his leadership in launching and conducting inspections against denounced magistrates, without trying to find the culprit in the media. This lack of responsibility and flagrant delay in investigations undermines public trust in justice and casts deep doubts on the seriousness of his commitment to fighting corruption and abuses within the judicial system.
Mr. Metani's speech resembled more of an extended comic skit than a serious statement from the head of the High Inspectorate of Justice.
Instead of taking his simple and clear responsibility, launching investigations into magistrates denounced for violations and abuses, he preferred to play the role of defender of impunity and advocate for magistrates.
Instead of focusing on his legal and moral duty to guarantee transparency and accountability, Mr. Metani chose to talk about “media pressures” and “attacks on magistrates,” appearing as the defender of the unchanging caste of untouchable magistrates, a caste that perhaps sees justice as an arena where they are unchallenged masters.
It is almost ironic that a person paid to protect the integrity of justice has forgotten that his primary duty is to inspect and investigate, not to protect against criticism and denunciation.
With this behavior, Metani seems more like an "supporter of impunity" than a guarantor of the law and equality before it.
In fact, his speech was a desperate attempt to shift responsibility from his shoulders and to shift the blame onto those who dare to reveal the truth.
Instead of taking criticism seriously and launching in-depth investigations, he chooses to attack the media and create an atmosphere of fear and silence.
Ultimately, Mr. Metani is a clear example of an inspector who does not know how to inspect, a failure in his duty who prefers to become a shield of impunity and a bitter farce for all those who believe that justice should be fair and impartial.
Lini një Përgjigje