“Law Knows No Ethnicity” – Firm Message After Ujman House Demolitions

The operation by Kosovo institutions to demolish 11 illegally constructed buildings on the shore of Lake Ujman remains in the spotlight, prompting various reactions domestically and from international partners.

The plots on which these constructions were erected have been owned by the Public Hydro-Economic Enterprise “Ibër-Lepenc” since 1973, when expropriation was carried out for the creation of the lake. So stated yesterday to “Bota sot” the CEO of this enterprise, Faruk Mujka, adding that actions to free public lands will not stop in any case of usurpation or unauthorized construction, regardless of the ethnic affiliation of those who committed the violation.

On Tuesday, excavators, with the assistance of the Kosovo Police, began the demolition of buildings that authorities deemed as built on “Ibër-Lepenc” property.

However, the developments did not pass without international echo. The European Union Office in Kosovo expressed concern over the authorities’ decision and asked them to halt the demolitions, distancing itself from the way the action was carried out. A similar stance was held by the embassies of Germany and Great Britain in Pristina, which raised questions about compliance with full legal procedures in this case and in other cases in northern Kosovo.

Security expert Adem Lushaj, in a statement to the newspaper, assesses that the action should be understood as law enforcement and protection of state property. According to him, if the institutions have followed the regular legal channels, then it is a matter of carrying out their duty, not an issue to be judged through an ethnic or political lens.

“The action to demolish illegally constructed buildings on the shore of Lake Ujman should be seen first and foremost through the prism of the rule of law and protection of public property. If the institutions have acted in compliance with the law and after regular procedures, then this is a state obligation and not a matter to be assessed according to ethnic affiliation or political interests,” he said.

Regarding the reaction from Brussels, Lushaj acknowledges that concern for stability is understandable, but he emphasizes that long-term stability relies only on the uniform application of the law in every part of Kosovo.

“The reaction of the European Union, which calls for avoiding tensions, is understandable from the perspective of preserving stability. However, long-term stability is built on the rule of law, not on tolerating violations. The law must be applied equally in every corner of Kosovo,” he added.

He further highlighted the need for this case to serve as a model for acting with the same standard in other protected areas, such as the Accursed Mountains and the Sharri Mountains, where illegal constructions and environmentally harmful interventions have been recorded for years. “The protection of nature and public property must not be selective, but a uniform standard for everyone. Only in this way is citizens’ trust in state institutions strengthened and a state of law built, where the law is respected without exception,” concluded Lushaj.

Political analyst Zejnullah Jakupi also sees justification for the demolition of the buildings, provided that it was based on legal procedures. However, he draws attention to the fact that institutions must guarantee transparency, equal treatment for all, and avoid any perception of selective enforcement of the law.

“The action to demolish unauthorized buildings on the shore of Lake Ujman can be assessed as an action in the function of law enforcement and protection of public property, if the authorities have acted on the basis of regular legal procedures and competent decisions. Any unauthorized construction on public property creates a dangerous precedent, because it weakens respect for the law and harms the general interest,” Jakupi told “Bota sot.”

He added that especially in sensitive areas like the north, every action must be accompanied by caution and clear communication. As for the EU’s stance, Jakupi interprets it more as an appeal for caution and dialogue than as opposition to the rule of law. He stresses that the protection of public property and the respect of civil rights must go hand in hand, with law equal for everyone.

“The reaction of the European Union can be seen as a call for caution and dialogue, especially due to the political and security sensitivity in that area. However, the request to halt an action should not be interpreted as opposition to the rule of law; rather it should be seen as a request that law enforcement be carried out in a coordinated, transparent manner and without risking new tensions,” he continued.

Jakupi underscored that this case sends a strong message: the rule of law must apply equally to everyone and public property must be protected from any illegal use. At the same time, he emphasized the importance of professionalism, justice, and impartiality of institutions to build citizens’ trust and strengthen democracy.

“In this case, a balance must be maintained between individual rights and public interest. The right to private property is one of the fundamental rights and must always be respected, as long as it is exercised within the limits of the law. But, no individual right can be used to violate public property, common spaces, or the rules that apply to everyone,” he elaborated.

In conclusion, Jakupi stressed that the assessment of this action should be based on facts and procedures, not on political perceptions. He suggested that the EU’s role should focus on monitoring the process and ensuring that the law is applied equally, without distinction of ethnicity or affiliation, so as to strengthen the rule of law state.