The retrial that reinstated the conviction of Pal Lekaj in the case known as the “53-million case” has reopened the debate over how public money is managed in Kosovo. Beyond responsibility for the specific decision, there remains the question of whether institutions monitor only spending procedures or also the destination of suspicious capital.
Të lidhura
None found
The verdict issued by the Basic Court in Pristina, which again sentenced former Infrastructure Minister Pal Lekaj to 3 years and 8 months in prison, is not yet final. The parties have the right to appeal. Nevertheless, the fact that the court once again reached a guilty verdict carries legal, institutional and political significance.
The case is not limited to the responsibility of a former minister or several former officials of the Ministry of Infrastructure. It points to a broader issue: how could a decision with financial consequences amounting to tens of millions of euros pass through the state institutions without being stopped in time?
The case concerns an additional payment of 53.1 million euros to the “Bechtel & Enka” consortium for extending work on the Pristina–Hani i Elezit motorway, known as the “Arbën Xhaferi” motorway.
According to the indictment, on September 27, 2017, an agreement was signed to extend the deadline for completing the works by 347 days, while at that point the financial cost of the extension had not been determined.
Two months later, on November 27, 2017, the consortium requested an additional payment of 63 million euros. After negotiations, the amount was reduced to 53.1 million euros. On June 5, 2018, the Government of Kosovo approved the payment.
The funds were transferred to the consortium building the motorway. The essence of the criminal case does not lie in who received the money, but in how the process was conducted, how the amount was determined and how the recommendation to approve it was made.
The prosecution has stated that the supervisory company “Hill International” had assessed the reasonable cost of extending the deadline at approximately 14.78 million euros. According to the indictment, the difference between this assessment and the approved amount caused damage of approximately 38.32 million euros to Kosovo’s budget.
Pal Lekaj headed the Ministry of Infrastructure in the government led by Ramush Haradinaj. However, the decision to make the payment of 53.1 million euros was neither an individual act nor a procedure that could have been completed solely at the minister’s discretion.
The process passed through institutional structures and concluded with the approval of the Government of Kosovo. This raises the question of why the financial request was not convincingly challenged by the supervisory company’s assessment before the decision was made.
Criminal responsibility is personal and can be determined only by a court. Political and institutional responsibility, meanwhile, extends more broadly, encompassing the ministry, the relevant committees, oversight mechanisms and the government cabinet that approved the payment.
A functioning administration cannot rely solely on punishing officials years after the funds have been paid. Oversight must be capable of identifying and stopping harmful decisions before they are implemented.
The “53-million case” has become part of a broader debate about the relationship between political power, public funds and capital invested outside Kosovo.
For years, in Kosovo and in the diaspora, people have discussed close ties between political figures and businesses that have rapidly expanded in Switzerland, Germany, Austria and other countries. These discussions mention meetings, photographs, politicians’ visits to private companies and public statements of support.
But neither friendships between individuals, nor joint photographs, nor the rapid growth of a company constitute evidence of illegal activity. They may justify questions, but verification must be based on financial documents, scrutinized transactions and official investigations.
The question is not whether every successful diaspora business should be viewed as suspicious. The issue is whether institutions, when confronted with major corruption cases, deal only with the administrative decision or also trace the movement of capital and possible beneficiaries.
A complete investigation should not stop at an official’s signature. It should analyze transactions, beneficial owners and any possible financial connections, both within Kosovo and abroad.
The Albanian diaspora has created thousands of successful businesses through hard work, discipline, bank loans and lawful activity. For this reason, it would be unfair to automatically link every instance of rapid economic growth to political influence or suspicious sources of financing.
Nevertheless, the lack of institutional transparency in major financial matters broadens suspicion beyond those directly involved. This also affects honest entrepreneurs and makes it more difficult to distinguish between legitimate success and wealth of unclear origin.
Corruption harms not only the state budget. It erodes public trust and casts a shadow of suspicion even over those who have earned their wealth through honest work.
Protecting the diaspora from generalizations cannot be achieved through silence, but through professional investigations. Well-founded suspicions should be verified, while accusations should not be made where evidence is lacking.
Major corruption cases cannot be treated as isolated administrative episodes. Investigators must follow the flow of money: who benefited, which contracts were used, through which accounts the funds passed and whether there are links to politically exposed persons.
When suspicious capital may have been transferred or invested outside Kosovo, cooperation with the authorities of the relevant countries is necessary. Western anti-money-laundering mechanisms are important, but they do not replace the need for concrete investigations and information-sharing.
The lack of an institutional response creates conditions for rumors to turn into collective beliefs, while individuals and businesses are judged without due process. Only transparency and documentary evidence can stop this cycle.
Pal Lekaj’s conviction at the retrial is an important development, but it does not answer all the questions surrounding the “53-million case.”
The proceedings should continue until a final decision is reached. At the same time, the institutions must clarify the entire decision-making chain that led to the payment and explain why the oversight mechanisms failed to stop it.
Kosovo should not be satisfied with identifying the people who may bear criminal responsibility. It must understand where the institutions failed and what measures have been taken to prevent a similar case from happening again.
As for suspicions regarding capital abroad, the answer cannot be based on rumors or political proximity. It must rest on documents, financial investigations and international cooperation.
Justice does not end with the pronouncement of prison terms. It requires the state to follow both responsibility and the trail of the money to the very end. / BS
