FLASH
Shkruar nga Mero Baze
If prosecutors have evidence that the lawyer would contact them, they should have let him finish the criminal case, to have complete evidence. If they deliberately stopped him to “save” their colleagues, they have practically sabotaged the investigation — which is a more serious form of corruption than what the lawyer is accused of.
Lawyer Besart Logu has been arrested on charges of illegal influence, after allegedly receiving eight thousand euros from a client, with the promise that he would influence the prosecutor and the judge in the case.
The decision has rightly caused controversy, as “illegal influence” must be proven when the accused has actually contacted the prosecutor or the judge in the case. Arresting him without consummating the act of influence turns the measure of arrest into a punitive measure for his “desire” to corrupt, transforming Article 245/1/4 for “exercising illegal influence over persons exercising public functions” into an article of the “thought police” — which is very fitting for the character in Kadare’s “Officer of the Palace of Dreams.”
But, beyond this legal absurdity, it should be seen whether behind this ridiculous decision there is some revenge hidden against the lawyer in question, or an attempt by SPAK prosecutors to protect their colleagues from arrest if they were contacted by the lawyer.
Besart Logu is a person with a political profile, one of the senior leaders of the Justice Department in the Democratic Party, strongly politically engaged against SPAK due to the political line of the DP and Berisha. If this has made him the object of revenge by the prosecutors, then we are facing a much more serious situation than simply the professional incompetence demonstrated by the arrest decision.
The other track is that of the solidarity of SPAK prosecutors and GJKKO judges with their colleagues who could have been contacted by the lawyer. But this also constitutes a failure of the investigation. If the prosecutors have evidence that the lawyer would contact them, they should have let him consume the criminal offense, in order to have complete evidence. If they deliberately detained him to “save” their colleagues, they have effectively sabotaged the investigation — which is a more serious form of corruption than the one the lawyer is accused of.
In any case, this is a typical case where there is more reason to suspect those who issued the arrest warrant than the suspect of corruption.
Therefore, it must be clarified whether we are dealing here with incompetent prosecutors, vengeful prosecutors, or prosecutors who defend corrupt colleagues.
I would pray that they were simply incompetent prosecutors. That would be less dangerous than an arrest warrant motivated by revenge for his political stances on behalf of the Democratic Party (with which I strongly disagree) — or, worse yet, an attempt to shield prosecutors and judges whom this lawyer would have contacted from responsibility.
Lini një Përgjigje