The Kosovo Law Institute (KLI) has received with concern information that the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council (KPC) will convene an extraordinary meeting today at 15:00, with the discussion of the performance of the Chief Prosecutor of the Special Prosecution Office of the Republic of Kosovo (SKPR) included on the agenda.
KLI clearly emphasizes that accountability should not an cannot be used as a justification for expedited and unclear decision-making procedures concerning a chief prosecutor, particularly at a time when this prosecution office is handling cases related to the fight against organised crime and transitional crime, including in cooperation with friendly states of the Republic of Kosovo.
KLI recalls that reforms in the prosecutorial system must promote public confidence in this system and guarantee its independence from any perception of political influence being exerted over the prosecutorial system.
Before taking any action concerning the Chief Prosecutor of the SPRK, the KPC must take into account the fact that there is already a serious precedent involving expedited and unfounded decision-making by the KPC, which should serve as an institutional lesson. At the end of 2025, the KPC dismissed Besim Kelmendi from the position of Acting Chief State Prosecutor through an expedited and contested procedure. In December 2025, the Supreme Court itself annulled this decision as unlawful.
KPC should draw lessons from this case and avoid repeating practices of hasty decision-making.
KLI reiterated that any decision-making process that may affect the position or mandate of the chief prosecutor of a particular prosecution office must be in accordance with the Constitution, the applicable law and judicial practice.
Furthermore, every decision must take into account the specific nature and mandate of the SPRK. Therefore, any performance evaluation of the Chief Prosecutor of the SPRK must be professional, fair, impartial, objective, and based on measurable indicators, while simultaneously respecting the independence of prosecutors in handling individual cases.
The demand for accountability must not be used as an instrument or means of interfering with the functional independence of a prosecutorial office, just as independence cannot be invoked as a justification for a lack of accountability. These two standards must be applied in practice in a fair, transparent, and balanced manner.
KLI does not understand the urgency of convening such a meeting before all available legal remedies have been exhausted and fully addressed.
Therefore, KLI calls on the KPC to ensure a fair and independent process and to refrain from taking any action that could undermine the principles of legal certainty, the functioning of the SPRK and, most importantly, public trust in the KPC and perceptions regarding the independence of the prosecutorial system.