MPs’ mandates in question, Haradinaj calls them invalid while legal experts provide clarification

Ramush Haradinaj, the former leader of the Alliance, claims that MPs’ mandates have now “expired” and that all their actions, including participation in the session scheduled for September 9, are in violation of the Constitution.

According to Haradinaj, Vetëvendosje, although it emerged as the winning party, failed to constitute the Assembly. For this reason, he believes that the MPs’ mandates are no longer valid and that the funds spent on the elections have also been wasted.

“The winning party that failed to constitute the Assembly—the MPs’ mandates have expired, the election expenses have been wasted…,” Haradinaj said.

He insisted that MPs cannot take part in a session that, in his interpretation, is no longer supported by a constitutional basis.

“We are not MPs; I no longer have a mandate. Attending a session without a constitutional mandate is not permitted,” Haradinaj declared.

Bujrani: The mandate remains in force

Legal expert and justice affairs specialist Blerim Burjani holds the opposite view. He says that the MPs’ mandates have not yet lost their validity.

Burjani said that the situation could be referred to the Constitutional Court by the authorized parties. According to him, if this happens, the process could be put at risk and declared unlawful.

He also stressed that such a referral could have consequences for the institutions, while expressing doubts about the independence and professionalism of the Constitutional Court because, in his view, some of the judges were elected through agreements by MPs who had party affiliations.

“Yes! But the process is now under way—who will take the case to the Constitutional Court? If the case is referred by the legitimate parties, in accordance with the conditions for bringing the matter before the court, then there is a risk that the process will be declared unlawful,” Burjani told Bota sot.

According to him, in this case the fate of the institutions would remain in the hands of judges who, he claims, had previously been supported by political parties. For this reason, Burjani said it was important that the case not be referred to court, because then, according to him, everything would come to an end.

Bajraktari: The deadline has been set, but no consequence for failing to comply has been provided

Ardian Bajraktari also addressed the deadline for constituting the Assembly. He explained that the Constitutional Court had ruled that the process must be completed within 30 days of the certification of the election results, based on its interpretation of Article 66, paragraph 1, of the Constitution.

However, Bajraktari believes that in its interpretations in recent years, the Constitutional Court has not determined what consequence would result from failing to meet this deadline, nor has it imposed any sanction for such a situation.

“As is already known, the constitutive session, that is, the constitution of the Assembly, should have taken place within 30 days of the certification of the election results, because this deadline was set by the Constitutional Court through its interpretation of Article 66, paragraph 1, of the Constitution. However, one of the shortcomings in the Constitutional Court’s interpretations in recent years has been the fact that it set a 30-day deadline but did not establish a sanction, namely what the consequence would be if this deadline were not met,” he told Bota sot.

Bajraktari said that the current circumstances constitute a violation of the Constitutional Court’s decision and, consequently, of the Constitution as well. According to him, the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure have also been violated, as they specify the implementation of the Constitution and are directly based on it.

He added that the concrete consequences of failing to comply with the 30-day deadline could be determined only if the authorized parties refer the matter to the Constitutional Court for interpretation.