Krasniqi levels accusations over architectural projects: Justice should scrutinize officials at the top of power

Political analyst Afrim Krasniqi has expressed strong doubts about the way architectural projects in Albania are managed and implemented.

In a reaction posted on social media, he claims that Prime Minister Edi Rama has full control over this field, including the selection of architects, studios, projects, juries, support funds, and even the clients who pay for these services.

To illustrate this concern, Krasniqi pointed to a project involving the construction of one of the tallest towers in Albania, a case which, according to him, requires a deep and comprehensive investigation. He listed five key questions which, in Albania’s circumstances, he says should be answered by investigative bodies.

At the end of his reaction, the political analyst also highlights a stark difference in the way justice operates in the country.

According to Krasniqi, the real standards of the rule of law and the fight against corruption are not proven by prosecuting ordinary citizens who make illegal electricity connections because of economic hardship. He stresses that justice shows real success only when it investigates officials at the highest levels.

Full post:

To legally win and carry out an architectural project in Albania, a foreign investor or architecture studio must register with the National Business Center, have its professional license recognized by the Ministry of Infrastructure (or the Professional Order), and secure project rights through public tenders or private contracts. That is the law. But in Albania, first we have the prime minister and then we have the law. He personally selects the architects, the studios, the projects, the jury, the support funds, and the clients who must pay for the project and the architects. This is the suspicion and this is the accusation repeatedly raised in informal conversations with private companies and senior officials, but now also documented by the prime minister himself in the publication bearing his foreword, which he arrogantly presents at international meetings and in the media, “The Albanian Files.”

Here is one of the notes — it concerns the project for the tallest towers in Albania.

“Benedetta Tagliabue wrote to me asking whether I agreed to have my contact number given to the Prime Minister of Albania. I said, of course. Five minutes later, the Prime Minister contacted me, asking whether I could come to Tirana to discuss the possibility of a project. Chile is very far from everywhere, so I told him the best thing would be for me to stop in Albania during my next trip to Europe. That trip was due to take place two weeks later, because of a visit to the construction site of the EDP building in Lisbon. So, in the final days of May, I managed to spend around twenty-four hours in Albania. Since then, I have returned four more times.”

Without prejudging the architect, his professionalism and sincerity, which deserve to be appreciated, in the Albanian context these are the questions that deserve answers from SPAK:

1. Are we dealing with a concrete case of abuse of office or, at the very least, with grounds for an investigation into abuse of office?

2. Can it be normalized as acceptable for the Prime Minister personally to contact a private company with no prior interest in order to bring it to Tirana, secure one or more projects for it, connect it with the financing firm (the client), and then later approve, as executive head of the jury/Albanian side, all subsequent acts related to the projects?

3. Could the head of SPAK call a company on the phone to tell it to come to SPAK and win tenders? If not, can SPAK allow such a thing to happen at the country’s highest executive and political office, the office of the prime minister?

4. Article 26 of Council of Ministers Decision 830/2013 prohibits members of the government, including the prime minister, from “holding meetings with business representatives or interest groups without the presence of two civil servants/senior officials of the relevant ministry and without keeping minutes of the meetings, recording the identity of the persons involved in these meetings, as well as documenting the issues discussed in a special register kept by the secretary-general of the relevant ministry.” In this specific case, the Prime Minister should have had his cabinet staff and the Secretary-General present and documented the meeting in the official record. Did this happen in this and other similar cases?

5. If the construction/executing company is found to be subject to measures by SPAK and the Special Court against organized crime, will the investigation be expanded to examine the links between the company (the client), the architect’s studio selected by the head of government, and the formal and informal relations/agreements between them?

That is all for now.

Anti-corruption measures and rule-of-law standards are not measured by investigations into citizens who have made illegal electricity connections because they were unable to pay their monthly bills, but by investigating senior officials who control/(mis)use their office, the state, institutions, decision-making, the budget, public property, and their mandate for corrupt, clientelist, abusive ties that undermine functional democracy and public transparency.