The decision of Kosovo President Vjosa Osmani to withdraw her request from the Constitutional Court—which sought clarification regarding the constitution of the Assembly—has triggered public and legal debate.
In a Facebook statement, Eugen Cakolli from the Kosovo Democratic Institute (KDI) criticized the move, saying that even though institutions may have legitimate reservations about certain individuals—especially if there are repeated security concerns—this does not justify withdrawing from a case of high constitutional importance.
“If, after eight years of such reports, no investigation or legal action has been initiated, it’s hard to justify how a procedural element like the appointment of a reporting judge could be a valid reason to pull out of such a vital constitutional case,” Cakolli stated.
The Role of the Reporting Judge Is Limited
Cakolli emphasized that the reporting judge does not decide the fate of the case or its content. Instead, decisions at the Constitutional Court are made by a panel of three judges, and if there are disagreements, the case is reviewed by the full bench, with decisions made by majority vote.
“Even if the request is formally withdrawn,” he warned, “the Court retains the right to continue examining the case if it determines there is significant public interest.”
Vacuum of Power Requires Clear Response
According to Cakolli, the current failure to constitute the Assembly within the constitutional timeframe has created an institutional vacuum, making this one of the most serious cases in need of urgent resolution.
“There is no doubt that this is a matter of the highest public importance, and only the Constitutional Court has the mandate to provide a definitive answer,” he added.
Finally, he called on the Constitutional Court to proceed with the case to ensure both the proper functioning of state institutions and the integrity of the Court itself.
