“The executive in a conflict of interest” — Tabaku: The government is clipping SPAK’s wings with the changes to the Procedure Code

The chair of the Committee on Human Rights and Media, Democratic Party MP Jorida Tabaku, on Monday criticised the government’s proposals to amend the Criminal Procedure Code.

During the committee meeting, she warned that the proposed interventions undermine the principles of the justice reform, SPAK’s room to investigate corruption and journalists’ freedom to investigate.

According to Tabaku, the proposals affect around 20–25% of the Code and conflict with the Constitution and with a series of laws adopted as part of the justice reform. She stressed that any change must be guided by the requirements of the European integration process, in particular the commitments under chapters 23 and 24.

“You are practically clipping SPAK’s wings and closing the door to future investigations”, Tabaku declared, describing the initiative as an attempt to secure the government unfair protection from investigation.

The Democratic MP also raised the issue of the government’s conflict of interest in drafting these changes, referring to the corruption and money-laundering accusations against its members and former members.

“Does the government have the moral right, when this government is clearly in a conflict of interest?”, she asked.

Tabaku noted that protecting the rights of persons under investigation, defendants and prisoners is a duty of the committee. She recalled that the committee has begun observation visits to the country’s prisons and that pre-trial detention is part of its work. Nevertheless, she asked that the same standards be applied to everyone, mentioning also citizens arrested for not paying for electricity, for interventions in their homes or during the pandemic.

Another concern she raised concerned the consequences of the changes for investigative journalism. According to Tabaku, limiting the possibilities to investigate and report on corruption and organised crime undermines freedom of speech and the public interest.

“The fight against corruption is the priority of priorities in the matter of European integration”, she stressed.

Tabaku also asked for a review by the European Commission. Referring to information she had received about the experts engaged in drafting the proposals, she said they are employed by the government and do not represent the official positions of the countries cited.

In conclusion, Tabaku described the proposed changes as “a step backwards”, arguing that they do not serve justice or the protection of human rights, but the interests of the corrupt.

Speech of MP Jorida Tabaku:

“I have looked with great concern at the new proposals for the Criminal Procedure Code. In them there is an important element concerning freedom of speech, which we will discuss when the draft comes to this committee.

I have followed the discussions on the Code and the proposals that change 20–25% of it. These proposals conflict with the Constitution of Albania, but also with a series of other laws that we have adopted as part of the justice reform.

I think the Criminal Procedure Code should have kept one principle in mind: the integration process and alignment with the requirements connected to it. Chapters 23 and 24 concern the justice reform, which you, with these proposals, are undoing.

I have a question: does the government have the moral right to undertake these changes, when it is clearly in a conflict of interest? Members and former members of this government are accused of corruption and money laundering. We have a record in which the Socialist majority has proposed, with the prime minister’s signature, the law on the suspension case.

Secondly, you have spoken about a series of elements concerning human rights that are important. We, as a committee, have begun a tour of observations in the country’s prisons, and pre-trial detention is also part of our work.

Undoubtedly, our duty is to protect the rights of anyone, whether under investigation, a defendant or a prisoner, because these are human rights. This also applies to those arrested for corruption and money laundering. But what about the rights of those who were arrested for not paying their electricity bills, for a roof extension or during COVID?

There is a problem in all this.

Even our discussion of this convention seems meaningless when the profession of lawyer no longer has value, since, in fact, here the government acts as the lawyer of corruption and, with the Criminal Procedure Code, legitimises it.

These changes conflict with the principles of the justice reform. You are practically clipping SPAK’s wings and closing the door to future investigations. No Council of Europe convention is worth anything if tomorrow SPAK has no possibility to investigate corruption, if tomorrow free speech is undermined, if tomorrow the journalist has no possibility to investigate and prepare an investigative report on corruption and organised crime.

I understand this tendency of the government, because it is a continuation of its behaviour: ‘Does the law on protected areas hinder me? We change the law so it does not hinder me. Does the Criminal Procedure Code hinder me? We change it. Does SPAK become a problem in the fight against corruption? Let us remove the powers it has. Let us penalise SPAK. Let us limit journalists’ room to investigate and deliver the news’.

We must be careful. The fight against corruption is the priority of priorities in the matter of European integration. Therefore, you are undermining SPAK’s room to investigate corruption and giving yourselves unfair immunity from investigation.

Meanwhile, you keep bringing these worthless proposals, when in fact we face laws that limit the powers that the Constitution and Albanians have given to SPAK.

You are proposing laws that limit the work of the lawyer, the work of the judge, the work of SPAK and the work of the journalist. The only ones satisfied with the proposals for the Criminal Procedure Code are the corrupt and the government.

As for the information I have received about the experts, what we learn is that they are a number of experts engaged and employed by the government to write these proposals. They do not represent the states or countries that have been cited. They are a number of honoured professors, who represent neither the positions nor the interests of these countries and who have reflected in laws and in the draft code the wishes of the government.

I hope the European Commission will have the possibility to check this system, since the integration process should reform Albania for the better and not take it in the wrong direction.

The new proposals are a step backwards. They help no one, neither justice nor human rights, but are a cover to help the corrupt”.