Prime Minister Albin Kurti’s support for amendments to the Law on Specialist Chambers has once again become a central topic of discussion following Daut Haradinaj’s statements about the dangers that night. Haradinaj claimed that failure to pass the law could have exposed lawmakers to bloodshed, since, according to him, there were armed people among the protesters and the situation could have ended in tragedy.
Të lidhura
None found
These claims have prompted debate over how Kurti’s decision should be judged. Activist Adem Lushaj links that assessment to protecting citizens’ lives and the circumstances in which the decision was made, while political analyst Faton Mehmeti claims that a plan to destabilize the country and remove the prime minister from power lay behind the event.
Mehmeti is calling on the Prosecutor’s Office to investigate the case. However, the impact Haradinaj’s statements may have on the assessment of Kurti’s decision, and whether there is evidence of a possible destabilization plan, remain to be examined. An assessment of political responsibility requires impartial verification by the competent institutions and must be based on facts, beyond public claims.
In his comments to “Bota sot,” Lushaj explains that a political leader is not judged solely by how firmly they stand by their positions. In his view, responsibility also includes the ability to make decisions in difficult circumstances, particularly when tensions threaten people’s lives and the stability of institutions.
Considering Kurti’s support in light of the circumstances described by Haradinaj, the activist believes that preventing a tragic confrontation should carry weight in assessing the decision, if Haradinaj’s account reflects what happened.
Lushaj presents the ability to make difficult decisions during crises as part of a political leader’s responsibility, alongside maintaining their positions. In his view, risks to citizens and institutions are factors that should be included in that assessment.
He also notes that public statements alone do not establish the full circumstances of that night. For this reason, he calls for conclusions to be based on concrete evidence.
In his explanation, Lushaj reiterates that if the situation Daut Haradinaj described was real, the avoidance of tragic consequences should be weighed seriously when assessing Albin Kurti’s actions. But, he says, the claims made so far are not enough to establish everything that happened that night.
The activist also emphasizes that democracy requires decisions to be made freely, without intimidation or threats. In this context, he puts citizens’ lives ahead of any political interest or calculation.
For Lushaj, no political calculation can outweigh human life, and decisions in a democratic system must be made free from pressure and threats.
He calls for the assessment of the decision to take into account the facts, the specific circumstances, and the possible consequences of each choice. In his view, this is the only way to avoid a judgment based merely on statements or political interpretations.
Meanwhile, Faton Mehmeti claims he was aware of a plan to destabilize the country and topple Prime Minister Albin Kurti. He says he received information about the event on the night it happened and made it public the following day, when, according to him, many people did not believe it.
In his response to “Bota sot,” the analyst claims that, according to the plan he says existed, failure to vote on the bill that night would have triggered an escalation that could have resulted in loss of life.
Referring to when he published the information, Mehmeti insists he had it from the night of the event and made it public the following day. He describes the information as true, despite the disbelief with which, he says, it was received.
According to his claim, casualties were also anticipated if the bill was not passed. Mehmeti says any loss of life would have been used as a pretext to topple Kurti and carry out a coup.
The analyst describes this as a plan in which possible deaths, if the bill failed to pass that night, would serve the goal of removing the prime minister from power through a coup.
To establish the facts behind these claims, Mehmeti calls for the involvement of the justice authorities. He says the Prosecutor’s Office should launch an investigation to clarify the circumstances and determine which people may have been involved.
At the end of his comments to “Bota sot,” Mehmeti calls his claim true and asks the Prosecutor’s Office to intervene, summon Daut Haradinaj, and arrest everyone who, according to him, had a plan or scenario to destabilize the country.
