From a public sentence in criminal proceedings, the case of prosecutor Arian Salihu and the dangerous border between interpretation and the law
Written by Baton Haxhiu
A prosecutor at the Basic Court, named Arianit Salihu, had authorized two investigators to interview me for a public statement of mine, turning a political analysis into a procedural object. Today I was in the investigator's office. And what I saw was not just a procedure, but a misunderstanding that has taken institutional form.
I wasn't there for an action, for a fact, or for an event that requires clarification. I was there for a sentence and to respect the institution even though I made it clear to them that this was regrettable.
A sentence spoken publicly, in a television studio, in a full context, heard and understood by the audience.
The two investigators were correct. Professional. And at one point, in a conversation that went beyond formality, they told me that this case had been initiated by the prosecutor. And that for them this was a professional obligation.
I felt sorry for him there.
Because this was no longer a matter of an invitation. It was a matter of how my word was read.
And when the word is misread by a citizen, it is a misunderstanding. When it is misread by an analyst, it is a debate. But when it is misread by a prosecutor and it returns to the procedure, then we have a problem, because a prosecutor does not have the luxury of misreading.
He must distinguish between word and action. Between metaphor and exhortation. Between analysis and exhortation.
In this case, what happened can only have three explanations.
Or it is a reading and formation problem, i.e. the inability to understand a text in its entirety.
Or it is malice, that is, a will to distort the meaning of a statement.
Or is it political pressure, i.e. use of the institution beyond its purpose.
All three are serious. All three are unacceptable. And all three, for a prosecutor, are an ethical catastrophe.
Because here we are not dealing with a secret statement. We are dealing with a public analysis. And a public analysis is not read with tweezers, but is read as a whole.
For this reason I am addressing you, Prosecutor Arian, not to defend myself because that is simple in this case. But I felt sorry for you and the prosecution.
I am addressing you to defend a standard that is greater than any individual. Because the moment a prosecutor begins to investigate the way something is said, and not what is done, he departs from the law and enters into interpretation, and for even formal knowledge, the interpretation of speech is not a criminal competence.
Below I am reminding you of the text I left with the investigators, which remains unchanged and represents my position in its entirety. This text was a message to you, Mr. Prosecutor, Arianit Salihu.
What concerns me in this case is not the invitation itself, but the logic on which it is built.
You, the prosecutor, Arianit Salihu, have taken a fragment detached from a complete political analysis and moved it from its natural context, to treat it as an object of investigation. This is not simply a misinterpretation. It is a dangerous way of understanding public speech.
Because the word in a democratic society is not read in isolated fragments, but in its full meaning. Otherwise, every metaphor can be criminalized, every criticism can be turned into criminal suspicion, and every political analysis can be treated as a threat.
My statement is clear to anyone who reads it in its entirety. I say explicitly: “no one is talking about the crisis anymore… we have lost a lot in this country and we are dealing with procedures”, setting the context of a criticism of the general situation and not of the legal order.
Further, I articulate two paths that are within democratic logic: "either let them give the man 80 votes, or let them show that he is not ready to govern", which is a clear reference to parliamentary functioning and political legitimacy, not to any extralegal action.
Even the expression used "get rid of them in any way" is part of a political figurative language, which is immediately clarified by the context itself: "either give them 80 votes, or remove them so that others can govern", that is, through democratic and constitutional means.
In fact, in the end, I make the boundary clear: "our constitutional system does not allow this, it does not enable it," which is a direct affirmation of the constitutional order, not a denial of it.
In this sense, we are not dealing with a statement that requires investigation, but with a political analysis that requires a full reading. Transforming such an analysis into a procedural object is not only a misinterpretation, but a problematic shift of the boundary between free speech and institutional intervention.
If this way of reading becomes the standard, then we no longer have a problem with a statement, but with the very space for free thought. And that is what makes this case a dangerous precedent.
Because a state that begins to investigate how people speak, rather than what is done, enters a territory where the line between justice and control over thought begins to blur. And this, for the institutions themselves, is a wrong path.
I have no hesitation in clarifying everything I have said. Quite the contrary. But it is equally important to clarify this: political analysis is not a criminal object and cannot be treated as such.
This is not a personal matter, but it is a test of how justice understands its limits.
And if this boundary begins to be built on misreadings, then the problem is not with the word. It is with the authority that reads it. With a prosecutor like Arianit Salihu who wants authority over nothing. And authority does not arise in a vacuum.
PS My full statement in T7
No one is talking about the crisis anymore. Not about welfare, not about the way a citizen lives. There is no talk about infrastructure, be it education, health, roads, or energy. We have lost a lot in this country and in the meantime we are dealing with procedures. This is unfortunate.
What I want to say is this. Citizens should prepare for two options. Either give the man 80 votes. Or show that he is not ready to govern. Because this no longer makes sense. Citizens are playing with themselves.
"Get rid of him by any means" is a call expressed in figurative political language, which is immediately clear: either give him 80 votes, or remove him and let others govern. Because we are tired.
This one has been governing outside of procedures for two and a half years. The metaphor of the "80s" implies precisely this collective fatigue, the endless wait for someone to realize a model of power similar to Edi Rama, Miccocki, or Vučić.
But this is not possible. Our constitutional system does not allow this. It does not enable it.
t7 live
