The expanded case against Belinda Balluku puts the government’s defence of senior officials—and Parliament’s refusal to authorize her arrest—under renewed scrutiny.
Tirana Times, October 20, 2026 – Albania’s special anti-corruption prosecution, SPAK, on Tuesday communicated final charges against former Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku, including corruption, money laundering, asset concealment and violations of equality in nine public procurement procedures. The expanded charges deepen a case that has exposed a confrontation between judicial investigations and political protection.
Prosecutors identified five categories of alleged offences: violations of equality in nine tender procedures, committed in collaboration; passive corruption involving public officials; passive corruption involving senior state officials; two instances of concealment, non-declaration or false declaration of assets; and money laundering involving two properties. SPAK said it was also communicating charges to other people involved in the case.
Balluku has previously denied wrongdoing, and the allegations remain to be tested in court. But the affair extends beyond her individual criminal liability. The government’s prolonged defence of her position, Parliament’s refusal to authorize her arrest and a legislative initiative to restrict judicial suspension of ministers have made it a major test of accountability at the highest levels of the Albanian state.
From public contracts to suspected illicit wealth
The charges extend the case beyond alleged manipulation of procurement into suspected corrupt benefits and the handling of criminal proceeds. These accusations require separate proof. Their combination, however, substantially increases the investigation’s significance: if established in court, they would connect public authority with private enrichment and the concealment of wealth.
Earlier stages of the investigation concerned major infrastructure procurement, including the Llogara tunnel and sections of Tirana’s outer ring road. The nine tender procedures now identified by prosecutors raise broader questions about institutional safeguards. Repeated violations, if proven, would demand scrutiny of how decisions were made, how oversight functioned and whether officials could challenge instructions from above.
A prolonged political defence
The institutional dispute intensified after the Special Court suspended Balluku from her executive duties in November 2025. Prime Minister Edi Rama challenged the suspension before the Constitutional Court, presenting it as an intervention in executive authority. On February 6, the constitutional proceedings ended without overturning the suspension.
Rama’s defence was also political. In February, he said he had rejected Balluku’s resignation three times. She was subsequently removed during a cabinet reshuffle announced late that month, with Parliament formally approving her dismissal on March 5.
A government is entitled to challenge judicial decisions through constitutional procedures. But retaining a senior official facing serious allegations carries a separate political responsibility. The presumption of innocence protects an accused person from being treated as convicted; it does not require a prime minister to maintain that person in executive office.
By repeatedly refusing her resignation, Rama assumed responsibility for her continued presence in government. Her eventual removal ended that role without resolving why political protection had prevailed for so long.
Parliament’s shield against arrest
SPAK submitted its request for authorization to arrest Balluku on December 16, 2025, seeking permission to replace existing restrictions with detention in prison or house arrest. On March 12, the Socialist-controlled Parliament rejected the request.
The majority argued that the risks cited to justify detention were insufficiently substantiated, particularly because Balluku no longer exercised executive functions. Prosecutors had raised concerns about witness intimidation and interference with evidence.
The vote did not terminate the investigation or prevent prosecution. Its effect was to withhold authorization for the requested deprivation of liberty. Balluku retained her parliamentary seat and protection against arrest.
Nevertheless, leaving government does not necessarily eliminate influence over former subordinates, administrative structures or political networks. Whether such influence creates a concrete risk requires evidence, but departure from office alone cannot settle the issue.
The decision also exposed a structural tension: governing-party lawmakers were deciding whether prosecutors could seek the detention of one of their own senior figures. That authority requires particular restraint if immunity is to remain a constitutional safeguard rather than become partisan protection.
Changing the rules during an investigation
The confrontation also produced a legislative initiative. On February 16, Rama and Socialist lawmakers announced proposed changes to Article 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent courts from suspending ministers and several other senior officeholders. Rama presented the proposal as protection of executive authority and denied that it concerned only Balluku.
The initiative addressed suspension from office rather than providing a general exemption from investigation or trial. Even within that narrower scope, its implications were serious: the governing majority sought to restrict a judicial instrument while it was being applied to one of its most powerful members.
This sequence raises concerns about state capture—the use of public institutions and legislative authority to protect political insiders from effective accountability. The issue extends beyond whether an official abused her position to whether institutions adapt their decisions and rules to shield those exercising power.
That is an assessment of institutional conduct, not a judicial finding against Balluku. It explains, however, why the case carries significance beyond an individual corruption prosecution.
A wider crisis of accountability
Balluku’s case follows proceedings involving other senior figures, including former Deputy Prime Minister Arben Ahmetaj, former Environment Minister Lefter Koka and former Health Minister Ilir Beqaj. Their cases involve different allegations and outcomes and must be assessed individually. Their recurrence nevertheless makes explanations based entirely on isolated misconduct increasingly inadequate.
The pattern raises questions about political appointments, control over public spending and the effectiveness of government oversight before prosecutors intervene. Criminal proceedings can establish individual responsibility, but they cannot substitute for political accountability.
The Balluku affair illustrates both the capacity of judicial institutions to investigate the governing elite and the political resistance they encounter. The executive defence, parliamentary refusal to authorize arrest and proposed restrictions on suspension have turned it into one of Albania’s most consequential tests of equality before the law.
Balluku’s criminal liability will be decided in court. The government’s and Parliament’s handling of her case already carries a political responsibility of its own.
The post Albania’s Former Deputy Prime Minister Faces Corruption Charges After Months of Political Protection appeared first on Tirana Times.