FLASH NEWS
Why did the prosecutors mention 35 years in prison?/ Lala reveals the behind-the-scenes of the closed-door meeting on Balluk's immunity
2026-02-23 21:20:24 / POLITIKË
Journalist Klodiana Lala, invited to the show "The Unexposed" on MCN TV, spoke about the closed-door hearing on Belinda Balluku's immunity.
Lala said that prosecutors claim that Balluku could tamper with evidence, so they are requesting the lifting of her immunity in order to assign another security measure.
Regarding the allegations that Balluku threatened witnesses with organized crime figures, Lala said that there is no new criminal charge for intimidation, but only allegations from a subordinate.
" The meeting of the Council for Mandates and Immunity was held behind closed doors, after SPAK requested this. Prosecutors claimed that it is a matter under investigation and there is a risk of damaging evidence and the investigation. They requested a closed-door meeting.
The term “35 years in prison” was used. Mr. Braho, presenting the arguments, stated that in the first moments, when the suspension from exercising functions for Balluku was requested and approved, the criminal offenses had a penalty margin of up to 10 years. But then the prosecutors claim that they have new evidence that has aggravated Balluku's positions, 9 episodes, the Llogara tunnel, 7 lots of the Ring Road and the Thumane-Kashar concession. The prosecutors have said hypothetically that he could be sentenced to up to 35 years. Mrs. Balluku's position has been significantly aggravated. So this was the context in which the prosecutors used the phrase 35 years in prison.
Prosecutors, to support their request, have presented the argument that Balluku may interfere to destroy evidence. Second, there is a risk of witness intimidation. In this context, prosecutors have presented wiretaps, where Ms. Balluku's subordinates have spoken to each other, which raises suspicions that Ms. Balluku is using people with criminal records to intimidate witnesses. But there is no new criminal charge for witness intimidation.
Prosecutors claim to have secured evidence that, according to them, leads to reasonable suspicion that Balluku is intimidating witnesses.
There is no exponent of organized crime who has been wiretapped, but subordinates who have claimed to have been blackmailed by people with records. When prosecutors raise this claim, it is a very strong condition to convince the Parliament to grant authorization.
"Initially there were suspicions about an accusation, now there are several rumors and suspicions. There is also evidence from one of Balluk's subordinates, who claims that she carried out the tenders under the orders of Berber, she is a defendant, she claims that she was threatened to withdraw her testimony against Balluk," Lala declared.
Regarding journalist Sokol Balla's question at SPAK, Lala said that it was a normal procedure, since Balluk's wealth is being investigated and she was married to Mr. Balla.
"Because they were married, a property investigation is being conducted for Balluk and related persons have been summoned. It's a normal procedural matter, he stayed for about two hours at SPAK, he made no comment on the way out. It's a procedure," said Lala.
Asked if SPAK continues to hold on to the idea of requesting Balluk's arrest, Lala said that it is unlikely that a prison sentence will be requested, even if Parliament removes Balluk's immunity.
"SPAK requests permission or authorization for arrest, but in the case of women, SPAK has generally requested lighter measures. It has only gone to house arrest, except in cases where there is organized crime, murder, etc. If authorization is granted, it will go with a request for house arrest, but the chances are that it will not happen and SPAK has its hands tied," said Lala.
Happening now...
ideas
top
Alfa recipes
TRENDING 
services
- POLICE129
- STREET POLICE126
- AMBULANCE112
- FIREFIGHTER128