“Public deception by the Constitutional Court” – Rejection of the DP’s request on the Ombudsman, Bardhi attacks the Court

The Constitutional Court has rejected the Democratic Party parliamentary group’s request concerning the procedure for electing the Ombudsman (People’s Advocate).

Following the decision, the head of the DP parliamentary group, Gazment Bardhi, reacted by disputing the Constitutional Court’s reasoning. Bardhi claims the decision distorts the facts regarding the moment when the DP withdrew its support for the candidacies.

According to Bardhi, the DP withdrew its support for the candidacies on 5 December 2025, while the Laws Committee verified the candidacies and passed them for a plenary vote on 9 December 2025.

Bardhi’s reaction:

“They could have simply said ‘rejected’, for political purposes, without needing to publicly deceive. In any case, whatever decision the Constitutional Court were to take, we would respect it as binding for implementation. But we cannot respect public deception; on the contrary, we despise it with contempt.

I strongly condemn the distortion of facts and evidence by the Constitutional Court. A court that deforms facts loses credibility.

The Constitutional Court, in its public notice on the reasons for rejecting the DP parliamentary group’s request on the unlawfulness of the Ombudsman election, states: ‘In the case under review, this condition was met at the moment the Laws Committee verified the candidacies and passed them for a vote in plenary session. In this way, the process had produced concrete consequences, THEREFORE THE WITHDRAWAL OF SUPPORT AFTER THIS STAGE can no longer have consequences for the ensuing parliamentary procedure.’

This is simply a public deception, which strongly calls into question the constitutionality of the Court’s decision-making in this specific case.

The DP parliamentary group withdrew its support on 5 December 2025, through letter no. 3853 Prot., dated 05.12.2026. Meanwhile, the Laws Committee had not yet done what the Court claims it had done: verifying the candidacies and passing them for a plenary vote. The Laws Committee’s verification of the candidacies and their passage for a plenary vote took place at the Committee’s public meeting on 9 December 2025, four days after the withdrawal of support.

The Constitutional Court’s public deception regarding acts and facts that are publicly known and easily verifiable also justifies the Court’s unconstitutional reasons for not accepting our request that the case be heard in a public, transparent plenary session, so that public opinion could learn the circumstances of the case.

A Court that evades transparency and deceives public opinion about publicly known facts does not deliver justice, but politics. This is simply unacceptable for a state governed by the rule of law!”