DP Sought Parliamentary Commission on KAYO; Balla at the Conference of Chairpersons: It Does Not Meet the Constitutional and Legal Criteria

Taulant Balla, head of the Socialist Party’s parliamentary group, said during the meeting of the Conference of Chairpersons that the request to set up a parliamentary inquiry commission on the company “KAYO” Sh.A. does not meet the constitutional and legal criteria required for establishing such a commission.

According to Balla, from a substantive standpoint, the request does not identify a “particular matter,” as required by the Constitution, since the object of the investigation is conceived too broadly and encompasses a series of different matters, without clearly defining the concrete facts that should be subject to parliamentary investigation.

He emphasized that the request does not identify concrete actions or omissions by public officials, acts or contracts claimed to be unlawful, or the time period the investigation should cover. According to Balla, the proposed object aims at a general control of the company’s activity rather than the investigation of an individualized matter of particular public importance.

Balla also argued that the eight points presented in the object of the investigation are heterogeneous in nature, including contractual relations, production and commercial activity in the military field, budget funds, suspicions of arms trafficking and obligations toward NATO. According to him, such a scope does not allow a clear definition of the investigation’s boundaries and does not meet the constitutional standard for the existence of a particular matter.

The head of the SP parliamentary group emphasized that the request does not present concrete and sufficient indications of unlawfulness. He noted that Council of Ministers decisions, the creation of joint companies by “KAYO” Sh.A., media reports or published wiretaps do not in themselves constitute sufficient evidence to create a reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity.

According to Balla, a parliamentary inquiry commission cannot be set up to collect information with the aim of possibly uncovering unlawful acts, but must be based beforehand on concrete data and indications that justify parliamentary control.

He also raised the concern about a possible overlap between the parliamentary investigation and the verifications launched by the Special Prosecution regarding the wiretaps published in the media. According to Balla, such a situation could create a conflict of competences and violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

In conclusion, Balla said that although the request meets the formal criterion of the number of signatory MPs, it does not meet the substantive constitutional and legal criteria for establishing a parliamentary inquiry commission. According to him, the lack of individualization of a particular matter, the broad and unclear object, the absence of concrete indications of unlawfulness and the risk of interference in the competences of justice bodies do not create the necessary basis for exercising parliamentary inquiry control in the requested form.