PD’s Bardhi reacts to the Constitutional Court’s Ombudsman ruling: Court distorted facts and the chronology of events

The Constitutional Court unanimously rejected the request filed by Democratic Party MPs challenging the election of Endri Shabani as People’s Advocate (Ombudsman). Through the request, the opposition sought to verify his eligibility and incompatibility with the function, as well as the annulment of the relevant Assembly decision.

Following the announcement of the ruling, Democratic Party parliamentary group leader Gazment Bardhi reacted on social media, accusing the judicial body of manipulating procedural facts. Bardhi described the decision as a political act, though he confirmed the opposition will respect it from a constitutional standpoint.

“In any case, whatever decision the Constitutional Court would take, we would respect it as binding for implementation under the Constitution. But public fraud we cannot respect; on the contrary, we hold it in contempt. I strongly condemn the distortion of facts and evidence by the Constitutional Court. A court that deforms facts loses credibility,” Bardhi declared.

Dispute over the procedural chronology

The core point of the debate relates to the dates of the withdrawal of political support for the candidacy. According to the Constitutional Court’s public reasoning, the PD’s withdrawal of support no longer had legal effect because the verification phase by the Laws Committee and the passing of the candidacy for a vote in plenary session had already taken place.

Bardhi, for his part, presented an alternative documented chronology, according to which the withdrawal of support by the parliamentary group happened before the Laws Committee meeting.

“The Democratic Party Parliamentary Group withdrew its support on December 5, 2025, via letter No. 3853 Prot., dated 05.12.2025. Meanwhile, the Laws Committee had not yet done what the Court says it had done: the verification of candidacies and their passing for a vote in plenary session. The verification by the Laws Committee was done at the Committee’s public meeting on December 9, 2025 — four days after the withdrawal of support,” Bardhi said.

Accusations of lack of transparency

Wrapping up his reaction, the opposition representative said avoiding the review of the case in a public plenary session harms the principles of the rule of law and the credibility of justice institutions.

According to the PD, the refusal to open the process to the public was an attempt to cover up procedural violations during the vote in the Assembly.

“The Constitutional Court’s public fraud over acts and facts that are publicly known and easily verifiable also justifies the Constitutional Court’s unconstitutional reasons for not accepting our request that the case be reviewed in a public, transparent plenary session. A Court that evades transparency and deceives public opinion about publicly known facts does not dispense justice, but politics. This is simply unacceptable for a rule-of-law state,” Bardhi declared.