SPAK Calls Ilir Beqaj’s 23 Requests Unfounded; Former Minister Alleges Rights Violations, Ruling Due September 11

Debate and mutual accusations marked the court hearing involving former Health Minister Ilir Beqaj. The Special Prosecution requested that all 23 of his motions be dismissed, arguing that they are not supported by law, while Beqaj accused SPAK of using the independence secured through the Justice Reform to violate the rights of defendants.

Before the judicial panel, Special Prosecutor Edvin Kondili stated that the claims raised by the former minister had been addressed both during the investigation and at the preliminary hearing.

SPAK argued that the request to invalidate the notice of charges should not be accepted, as the actions had been approved by the preliminary judge. Regarding the claim that the theft charge has not been proven, prosecutors said that Beqaj was not submitting motions, but rather raising questions that would be answered during the final arguments stage.

Prosecutors acknowledged that the original procurement contract was not found at the Ministry of Health, which constitutes a violation. However, they clarified that a certified copy had been found at the FSDKSH, which is considered fully valid evidence. SPAK also defended the validity of data obtained through the electronic examination of computers.

In response, Ilir Beqaj insisted that the special prosecutors had committed serious procedural violations, making his defense more difficult. In the courtroom, he said that the prosecution had admitted to openly violating his rights during the investigation phase and that, as a result, it was now difficult for him to defend himself. According to the former minister, prosecutors had gained independence from the head of the prosecution office, but following the Justice Reform, they were using it to violate procedural rights and act as they pleased.

Beqaj also claimed that the complaint against him should have been dismissed from the outset because, according to him, it was based on questions rather than established facts. He also raised doubts about the certification of SPAK’s forensic laboratory and asked the court to order the prosecution to prove whether the equipment used to examine the computers was certified according to standards.

Following the parties’ submissions, the judicial panel did not immediately rule on the motions. The next hearing was postponed until September 11, when the court is expected to officially announce its position on the fate of the former minister’s 23 requests.