The Conference of Chairpersons has rejected the opposition’s request to establish a parliamentary inquiry committee into the activities of the state-owned company KAYO. The majority argued that the initiative does not meet the legal and constitutional requirements for establishing such an investigative body.
Të lidhura
None found
The initiative was submitted by the parliamentary groups of the Democratic Party, the Freedom Party and the “Alliance for Change,” and bore the signatures of 41 MPs. The opposition proposed that the committee consist of 15 members and operate for a six-month period.
The proposed scope included scrutiny of KAYO’s activities, its contractual relationships, the use of public funds and allegations of international arms trafficking.
The opposition also sought an examination of claims that the company had spent €34 million and parliamentary verification of audio recordings published in the media.
The claims concerning the €34 million and the audio recordings were raised by the opposition and do not, in themselves, represent conclusively proven findings.
Defending the request, Democratic Party parliamentary group chairman Gazment Bardhi said that the purpose of an inquiry committee is precisely to obtain and verify information.
Bardhi stated that KAYO had used €34 million from the state budget and that the opposition wanted to learn what benefit the state had gained from this activity, as well as how the agreements with private companies had been concluded.
He stressed that the request sought only to examine the contracts signed between a state-owned company and private companies. The head of the Democratic Party parliamentary group added that the opposition was also willing to discuss defining the scope of the inquiry.
On behalf of the majority, Socialist Party parliamentary group chairman Taulant Balla argued that the request did not meet the criteria required to establish a parliamentary inquiry committee.
According to the position he presented, the opposition’s proposal defines the scope of the inquiry too broadly, encompassing several different issues without clearly identifying the specific fact or group of facts that should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The document made public argues that no specific actions or failures to act by public officials or representatives of “KAYO” Sh.A. have been identified.
Likewise, neither the acts and contracts alleged to be illegal nor the period to be covered by the inquiry have been specified.
The majority considers that, in this form, the request seeks a general examination of all the company’s activities rather than an inquiry into a clearly defined matter of particular public importance.
The reasoning also states that the eight points in the proposed scope are heterogeneous. They include contractual relationships, commercial and manufacturing activities in the military sector, budget funds, suspicions of arms trafficking and the fulfillment of obligations to NATO.
According to the majority, a scope of this breadth does not allow clear boundaries to be set for the inquiry and does not meet the constitutional standard requiring the existence of a specific matter supported by clear indications.
The majority’s position stresses that the request does not present specific and sufficient information indicating illegality. Decisions by the Council of Ministers, the establishment by “KAYO” Sh.A. of four joint ventures with private partners, media and investigative reports, and the published audio recording are not, in themselves, considered sufficient evidence or indications to raise reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.
Under this interpretation, an inquiry committee cannot be established simply to gather information and determine during the process whether legal violations have occurred.
Before it is established, there must be specific information and indications demonstrating the existence of a particular matter requiring parliamentary scrutiny.
The majority considers that the existence of a special public interest that would make an inquiry by Parliament necessary has also not been sufficiently substantiated.
The sensitive nature of the defense sector and references to the international context of the purchase and sale of military equipment are described as general arguments, as long as they are not accompanied by facts proving harm to public security or an important state interest.
The fact that the defense minister sits on the governing bodies of “KAYO” Sh.A. is not viewed by the majority as sufficient grounds for establishing the committee. On matters related to the performance of his duties, the minister may be subject to scrutiny through standing parliamentary committees, questions or interpellations in plenary session.
The reasoning presented also emphasizes that a parliamentary inquiry cannot be used to determine the individual responsibility of a particular person.
Another point concerns the checks launched by the Special Prosecution Office against Corruption and Organized Crime into the audio recording published in the media.
The majority acknowledges that an ongoing criminal investigation does not automatically prevent the establishment of a parliamentary committee, but argues that including the same matter could lead to overlap and interference with the prosecution’s powers.
According to the document, this risk is particularly present in verifying the authenticity of the audio recording and assessing the evidence.
Under these circumstances, parliamentary political oversight could stray into the sphere of judicial review and create conflicts of jurisdiction with justice institutions, contrary to the constitutional principle of the separation of powers.
The majority argues that an inquiry committee should not become a parallel criminal investigation mechanism or exert institutional pressure on investigative proceedings that are still underway.
According to Balla, the issues raised by the opposition can be addressed through other instruments of parliamentary oversight provided for by the Constitution and Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. These include questions in parliamentary committees, questions in plenary session, written requests and interpellations.
Nor is the Defense Ministry’s failure to respond to several requests for information submitted by an MP considered sufficient grounds for establishing the committee.
According to the reasoning, accepting this claim would set a precedent under which every case in which the executive fails to respond to a parliamentary request could be used as grounds for establishing an inquiry committee.
In conclusion, Taulant Balla stated that the opposition’s request meets the formal requirement concerning the number of signatory MPs, but not the substantive constitutional and legal standards.
The shortcomings listed included the failure to identify a “specific matter,” the broad and unclear scope, the lack of specific and sufficient indications of illegality, and the risk of overlapping with the powers of justice institutions.
For these reasons, the Conference of Chairpersons did not approve the request to establish the KAYO inquiry committee. The political debate is expected to continue over the use of public funds, the activities of the state-owned company and the allegations related to international arms trading.
