Haxhiu’s re-election as speaker of parliament: does a new term begin as acting president?

Albulena Haxhiu’s return to the position of speaker of the Assembly of Kosovo has raised an important constitutional question: does a new six-month period begin for her as acting president, or does the term that began on April 4 end on October 4, regardless of her re-election?

The Constitution sets a clear time limit but does not explicitly address the unusual situation in which Kosovo finds itself. For this reason, legal experts have split into two different camps.

Article 90, paragraph 3, of the Constitution states: “The office of acting President of the Republic of Kosovo may not be exercised for a period longer than six months.”

The debate centers on a single distinction, but one of great importance: the provision refers to the “office” and not the “person.”

According to the first interpretation, the re-election of the speaker of parliament creates a new institutional situation and, along with it, a new six-month period for exercising the duties of president.

This view has been supported by former Constitutional Court President Enver Hasani, as well as former Constitutional Court judge Kadri Kryeziu. According to them, an elected or re-elected speaker of parliament begins the duties of acting president anew, meaning that the six-month countdown should also restart.

The main argument for this position concerns the continuity of institutions. Under this approach, Kosovo cannot be left without an official exercising the powers of head of state.

A contrary position is held by legal experts from the Kosovo Democratic Institute and the Kosovo Law Institute. They assess that the six-month limitation refers to the office of acting president itself, rather than to the individual mandate of the speaker of parliament.

Under this interpretation, the term began on April 4 and ends on October 4. The fact that the same person was re-elected as speaker of parliament does not reset the term to day one.

The constitutional wording appears to lean more toward this interpretation. The drafters did not stipulate that “a person” may not exercise the office for more than six months, but that “the office of acting president” may not be held for a period longer than that.

This is not merely a matter of terminology. If every election or re-election of the speaker of parliament restarted the term, the constitutional limit would lose its purpose.

In such a scenario, the parliamentary majority could re-elect the same person or change the speaker of parliament every six months, keeping the country indefinitely under the leadership of an acting official.

Thus, a solution intended to be temporary would become a permanent form of governance. This is precisely the situation the six-month limit is intended to prevent, by requiring institutions and parliamentary parties to elect a president with a full mandate.

However, the Constitution contains a significant gap. Article 90 is titled “Temporary absence of the President” and primarily addresses cases in which the sitting president is temporarily unable to exercise their responsibilities.

The current case is different, because the mandate of the elected president has ended while a successor has not yet been elected.

The founding document does not clarify what happens if six months pass and the Assembly fails to elect a president. Nor does it determine who exercises the powers of head of state after that period, or provide a direct mechanism to prevent an institutional vacuum.

This makes the argument for preserving the continuity of institutions understandable. The state must function, while certain presidential powers are essential to the constitutional order, security, foreign policy and the establishment of institutions.

But the need for institutional functioning cannot, by itself, change the content of a limitation set out in the Constitution.

It should also be borne in mind that Albulena Haxhiu was re-elected as speaker of parliament, not as president of the Republic. The presidential mandate is acquired through a separate constitutional procedure, which includes nomination, a secret ballot in the Assembly and the majority specified in Article 86.

For this reason, the election of the speaker of parliament cannot replace the procedure for electing the president. The claim that Haxhiu’s re-election automatically secures another six months for her in the presidency remains a legal interpretation and not an established fact, regardless of the authority of the experts who support it.

The same applies to the opposing position. In the absence of a Constitutional Court ruling on this specific case, the conclusion that Haxhiu cannot continue in office after October 4 cannot be considered final and binding either.

The safest solution would be to elect a new president before the end of the six-month period. Kosovo should not wait until the final days to find out whether, after October 4, it will have a president, an acting president with a disputed mandate or a vacuum at the head of state.

If the president cannot be elected within this period, the matter should be referred to the Constitutional Court as soon as possible. Only this court can provide an authoritative interpretation that binds the institutions and prevents challenges to decisions or decrees issued after October 4.

Without such a solution, any action taken by the acting president after the expiration of the term could be challenged on constitutional grounds. The consequences would not be limited to an academic debate among legal experts, but could develop into a crisis affecting the functioning of the state.

The interpretation that the six-month limit is linked to the office and not the person appears more convincing, both on the basis of the provision’s wording and its purpose.

The re-election of the speaker of parliament should not be used to restart a constitutional limitation from zero. Otherwise, the six-month term could be repeated whenever the parties fail to reach an agreement, while the institution of the presidency would remain indefinitely in the hands of an acting official.

Nevertheless, the constitutional gap and the conflicting interpretations mean that this assessment cannot replace a decision by the Constitutional Court.

The primary responsibility lies with the political parties, which must elect the president within the prescribed period. The Constitution is not intended to enable them to avoid reaching an agreement, but to push them to establish institutions with a full mandate and legitimacy.