FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
Prime Minister Edi Rama has criticized the way SPAK acted in the matter related to Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku.
He stated that the request for her arrest came after the Constitutional Court's decision to suspend the GJKKO measure and that the prosecution used as evidence a telephone conversation that, according to him, does not constitute a new element in the investigation.
Rama said that the material presented by SPAK includes a recording between a defendant and an interlocutor, where Balluku allegedly exerted pressure to change her testimony. According to him, this conversation does not contain direct references to the minister and was not verified before being used as an argument for the arrest request.
He added that the prosecution had this material earlier, but presented it only after the Constitutional Court decided to suspend the previous measure.
"The presentation of a recording between a defendant and a co-interlocutor, where the defendant, according to the prosecutor, threatened us. There is no mention anywhere in that conversation of Belinda, the minister, the head of the department or anything that seems like a real threat. I myself have neither heard it nor do I intend to listen to it or read the minutes, but justice has its duty to use it, which prompted the prosecutor to take all that up and come to request the arrest of a deputy, who is the only parent of a minor girl. I am not even taking into account the fact that the prosecutor had the threat, even before suspending the minister. Meanwhile, he only brought it up when the suspension measure was imposed, using it as an aggravating circumstance to request the arrest at all costs in a rush that more than a logical step in a procedure where new information appears, resembles an emotional reaction to the lifting of the suspension measure by Constitutional Court. I am not saying at all that a statement by a defendant in the same proceeding does not have the value of testimony and cannot be considered as evidence. I am not calling it that, I am hearing that the defendant tells the interlocutor, Balluku tied me to the chair, put a knife to my throat that had a few drops of dried blood on it and said I would kill you if you did not say this or do that. I am taking it that the prosecutors brought this. Can anyone tell me how such a telephone conversation can be brought to the Albanian parliament without any confrontation, without any cross-examination of evidence, without any verification of when and where this happened. No matter how horrific a telephone conversation between two women or men is described, even more so one defendant with another. How did I end up behind bars so easily, because two people spoke on the phone and this is new evidence, which is not even new, and when you think that you are being accused of this "It is easy in the Assembly to demand the head of an elected official, after everything has been done to put his 7 paisa not underground, but in the mud," said Rama.
Lini një Përgjigje