IKD opposes the manner of Blerim Isufaj’s removal from the post of Chief Prosecutor of the SPRK

The Kosovo Institute for Justice (IKD) has opposed the manner of Blerim Isufaj’s removal from the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Special Prosecution of the Republic of Kosovo (SPRK), describing the decision-making of the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council (KPK) as hasty and non-transparent.

IKD, in a reaction on Friday, said that the appointment and removal of chief prosecutors must take place through a fair, independent, professional and transparent process.

According to IKD, the KPK failed to convince the public of the reason and purpose of holding an extraordinary, closed meeting, at which Isufaj’s removal was decided.

The Institute stressed that, before the meeting, it had asked the KPK that any action regarding the leadership of the SPRK be taken through a process based on law and respecting procedural guarantees.

The KPK, in its statement after the decision, had mentioned findings of mismanagement, incompetence, failure to fulfil duties and lack of performance at the SPRK.

IKD asked for clarification on what supervisory and evaluative actions the KPK had taken during four years, the period for which, according to the KPK, problems in the management of the SPRK had appeared.

“Alleged problems over years do not in themselves justify the urgency of the decision-making,” IKD said.

The Institute stressed that accountability is necessary for the prosecutorial system, but that, according to it, it must be realised through clear procedures, objective evaluation and respect for procedural guarantees.

IKD also recalled the case of Besim Kelmendi’s dismissal from the post of Acting Chief State Prosecutor, saying that the Supreme Court had annulled that decision as unlawful. According to IKD, the KPK must learn lessons from this case and avoid hasty decision-making practices.

In its reaction, IKD also raised concerns about a possible perception of political influence. The Institute mentioned that Isufaj had been criticised and, according to it, “targeted as an undesirable person” by the Vetëvendosje Movement, assessing that the KPK’s decision-making, without convincing reasoning, could undermine public trust in a fair and apolitical process.

IKD stressed that, because of the SPRK’s mandate in handling sensitive cases, including organised and transnational crime, the KPK has an increased responsibility that its manner of acting should not create perceptions of interference in the functional independence of this prosecution.

“A decision affecting the leadership of a prosecution with a special mandate requires concrete, verifiable and convincing reasoning, including an explanation of why removal is the necessary and proportionate measure,” IKD’s reaction says.