Bardhi clarified that the Democratic Party supports the agreement in principle, as it contributes to the modernisation of Albania’s Armed Forces and fulfils the country’s NATO commitments. However, he stressed that no strategic partnership can justify violating the Constitution.

According to Bardhi, the opposition warned the majority during the parliamentary session and sought understanding from the Speaker of Parliament. In the end, however, he said political orders from Prime Minister Edi Rama prevailed, turning Parliament once again into “a notary of government decisions.”

“During Monday’s plenary session, on behalf of the Democratic Party Parliamentary Group, I officially warned that the procedure followed by the majority to approve the €302 million loan agreement between Albania and the United States for the purchase of military equipment was unconstitutional. I also warned that, if the majority insisted on proceeding in this way, the Democratic Party Parliamentary Group would submit the matter to the Constitutional Court.

This was not a political warning. It was a genuine and sincere one. It was our final attempt to prevent the parliamentary majority from involving Albania’s most important strategic relationship with the United States in an unconstitutional procedure.

Throughout the session, the opposition demanded respect for constitutional deadlines, MPs’ right to examine the act before voting, and the standards established only a few months ago by the Constitutional Court in its ruling on parliamentary procedures and Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. We warned that such a procedure would not resolve the urgency claimed by the government, but would instead prolong it, as constitutional review would become unavoidable.

Even before the session, in institutional communications with the Speaker of Parliament, we requested that this course of action not be followed. We asked for the legal deadlines to be respected and for MPs not to be deprived of their constitutional rights, including the right to review the draft law. To be completely honest, I must acknowledge that, during these discussions, we received understanding from the Speaker regarding our concerns. Unfortunately, in the end, neither the Constitution, nor reason, nor understanding prevailed. What prevailed was Edi Rama’s political order, once again turning Parliament into a notary of government decisions,” Bardhi said.

The seven alleged constitutional violations listed by the Democratic Party:

First violation: MPs were denied their constitutional right to examine the agreement before the vote. The Constitution and Parliament’s Rules of Procedure require the Speaker to distribute the draft law, the full agreement and the accompanying explanatory report immediately after submission, allowing MPs sufficient time to review the text, consult experts, propose amendments and make an informed decision.

Second violation: MPs were denied their constitutional right to oversee the use of public funds. Draft laws with financial implications must be accompanied by a report justifying the expenditure, enabling MPs to assess the impact on the state budget and exercise parliamentary oversight. According to PD, this report was not provided.

Third violation: MPs were deprived of their right to fully exercise their parliamentary mandate through debate, amendments and informed voting. Parliament’s Rules of Procedure require the agenda to be published at least two days before a plenary session. In this case, the agenda was changed and the agreement was debated and approved on the same day, disregarding the legally required 48-hour notice. The Constitutional Court has previously ruled that failure to respect this deadline undermines the principle of representative democracy.

Fourth violation: The agreement was approved through an expedited procedure within 24 hours, despite the Constitutional Court having ruled earlier this year that a minimum one-week period must be respected in comparable cases. According to PD, the same unconstitutional practice previously identified by the Court was repeated.

Fifth violation: The agreement was treated as though Albania were facing an exceptional emergency requiring immediate entry into force. PD argues that no such emergency existed. The government approved the agreement in principle on 19 June and signed it on 22 June, leaving more than a month to submit it through the ordinary parliamentary procedure. Instead, it was introduced only on Parliament’s final sitting day, creating what Bardhi described as an “artificial urgency.”

Sixth violation: One-fifth of MPs have the constitutional right to refer an international agreement to the Constitutional Court before its ratification. By introducing and approving the agreement within a single day, the parliamentary procedure effectively deprived the opposition of the opportunity to seek constitutional review before ratification, while also preventing the Constitutional Court from exercising its constitutional authority in time.

Seventh violation: According to PD, the government has made it impossible for the loan agreement to enter into force by classifying it as secret, thereby preventing its publication in the Official Gazette. The Constitution stipulates that a ratified international agreement becomes part of Albania’s domestic legal system only after its publication in the Official Gazette. Therefore, PD argues that an unpublished agreement cannot legally enter into force or become part of the country’s legal framework.