[ad_1]
The Council of Mandates and Regulation, gathered today to consider the request of the democrats for the removal of the mandate of Olta Xhaçka, agreed today to give the opportunity to the minister to be heard in the commission.
At the end of the discussions, MP Ermonela Felaj stated that, as the regulation provides, the session will not be with questions and answers from the MPs.
“We agreed to allow the minister the opportunity to listen to her, then she decides whether she will come or not. The session will not be a session with questions and answers, but only the minister will be heard. Everyone has the right to be heard.” – said Felaj.
In response, the democratic deputy Enkelejd Alibeaj asked the Speaker of the Assembly to set a suitable date, so that the matter does not drag on.
“In the announcement, set the date as well, let’s not give the opportunity to the minister and her lawyer to make a request to get acquainted with the material, don’t drag out the matter”, – concluded Alibeaj.
Earlier, the deputy of the Democratic Party, Gazment Bardhi, declared at the meeting of the Mandates Commission that the case for Xhaçka’s mandate will go to the Constitutional Court, where it will be determined whether the activity of Xhaçka’s husband on the coast is legitimate or not.
On the other hand, Ferhati informed Bardhi that according to the constitution, Xhaçka has not committed any violation and that no state property or benefit from it is in the name of the Minister.
Ferhati: The reason why we are meeting has to do with examining the criterion of whether the deputy has a profitable activity or uses public property. In your facts, it does not result that the MP uses public assets. This council meets when there is incompatibility of such a nature that when it goes to the Constitutional Court it has jurisdiction
Tell me where Olta Xhaçka has state assets and where she benefits from these assets. You have found a reason that serves your political interests, and you are misusing it. The MP himself must have use or benefit from the state’s wealth. YOU have made this forced request, you know the reasons. There is a decision of the Constitutional Court that confirms what I am telling you, you abused the request and you know it very well. We stick strictly to the debates and the constitution. This council does not belong to lengthy debates. I ask you for documents and clear things, you make up fictions and do not return answers.
White: She said that a man’s property is not a woman’s. It is the duty of the deputy to take measures to implement the constitution and the law. The fact that the beneficiary of the property is the husband of Olta Xhaçka is already known. They have the assets together. Whether it is called or not is the competence of the Constitutional Court, which says that if the Assembly is moved by 1/10 of the members, it must decide to send the case to the Constitutional Court. Conversely, if the motion of 1/10 is subject to discussion in Parliament, the constitutional provision would be inapplicable.
All MPs should apply for the status of strategic investor, why should only Olta get it?
top channel
[ad_2]
Source link
