Safet and Behar Bajri have filed a complaint with SPAK against Marjana Koçek, “Neomalësora”, following the latter’s statements.
This report comes after her statements about threats, which she made a few days ago in a post on social networks, after breaking away from the Socialist Party.
“This message is addressed to the Bajrajs of Shkodra. If my family is affected, even a single hair, I will not leave you without destroying you, as long as I have life,” Koçek’s post said.
“1. On 17.06.2026, the deputy of the Albanian Parliament, Ms. Marjana Koçeku, published on social networks (Facebook/Instagram), a statement which has been widely reproduced in the media, as follows: “This message is addressed to the Bajrajs of Shkodra. If my family is affected, even a single hair, I will not leave you without destroying you, as long as I have my life.”
2. With this public statement, the MP: (a) makes an open threat to the Bajri family to “destroy” them; and (b) publicly implies/claims that the Bajri family has threatened her family. The claim that the Bajri family has threatened her is untrue and unsupported by any evidence presented. Members of the family are currently deprived of their liberty (in prison), and have had no factual opportunity to carry out the actions attributed to them.
3. The MP has not presented the alleged evidence to the competent authorities, but has made public accusations in the media and social networks, falsely attributing a criminal offense (threats) to the family and seriously violating her honor and dignity.
4. The statement is not directed at a specific individual, but at the Bajri family/tribe as a whole. The accusation and public threat thus extend to every member of the family, including persons who are not parties to any proceedings, relatives and minor children, violating their honor, dignity and security, and prejudicing even those protected by the presumption of innocence. The collective scope of the statement, the public pledge to “destroy” the family “as long as I live” and the possible context of a blood feud, together with the fact that the statement comes from a person with public authority and has been widely disseminated, constitute aggravating circumstances that multiply the harm and danger to the family.
5. The complainant raises the suspicion that these statements may have been made for political and public gain, in the context of the MP’s recent political developments; however, the assessment of the motive remains with the investigation.
II. POSSIBLE LEGAL CHARACTERIZATION
The above facts may constitute:
6. “Defamation” (Article 120/2 of the Criminal Code) — false public attribution of a criminal offense (threat) against the Bajri family.
Objective element:
The MP has publicly stated:
“This message is addressed to the Bajrajs of Shkodra. If my family is affected, even a single hair, I will not leave you without destroying you…”
This statement, according to the complainant, conveys to the public the message that the Bajri family has taken or is taking threatening actions against the MP’s family.
Although it is not explicitly stated that “the Bajri family has threatened me”, the logical connection that is created is that there is a danger coming from them, to the extent that the MP feels the need to publicly warn that she will react to them.
Consequently, the public is presented as a fact that the Bajri family is involved in criminal behavior or intimidation.
The untruth of the fact
According to the plaintiff’s claim:
• there is no evidence that the Bajri family has threatened the MP or her family;
• there is no criminal proceeding, court decision or official act that supports such a claim;
• some of the people who are publicly identified with the Bajri family are deprived of their liberty and have not had the actual opportunity to carry out the implied actions.
In these circumstances, the public statement is presented as an attribution of an untrue fact.
Damage to reputation:
The statement was made by a member of Parliament and was widely distributed in the national media.
Due to the author’s public position:
• the statement has had a wide-ranging impact;
• it has exposed the Bajri family to public opinion as a source of threat and violence;
• it has violated the honor, dignity and reputation of the family members.
Subjective elements:
The author acted intentionally, as she:
• publicly identified a specific family;
• chose to make the statement on social media;
• was aware of the public resonance that her statement would have.
Therefore, it can be argued that the elements of the offense of defamation, paragraph 2, are met.
7. “Threat” (Article 84 of the Criminal Code) — the MP’s statement itself contains a public threat to “destroy” the family.
Objective element:
In the same statement, the MP states:
“If my family is affected, even by a single hair, I will not leave you without destroying you, as long as I have my life.”
This is not simply an emotional reaction or a rhetorical figure.
Statement:
• is addressed to a specific and identifiable subject (“Bajraj of Shkodra”);
• contains the promise of a future punitive action;
• uses the term “you destroy”, which in common language means causing very serious harm to a person, his family or his interests.
Creating a state of intimidation:
A family identified in such a statement:
• was placed under public pressure;
• was exposed to third-party reactions;
• was faced with a serious warning of retaliation.
This is particularly important given that the statement was not made by a private person, but by a public figure with institutional authority.
Intensity of the threat:
• a general expression of displeasure was not used;
• it was not said “I will follow the legal path”;
• it was not said “I will protect my family”;
but the expression was used:
“I will not leave you without destroying you as long as I live”,
which could be interpreted as a warning of causing serious and ongoing harm.
The final determination remains with the proceeding body. The particular danger of this public accusation: by publicly declaring the Bajri family as the source of the threat to her family, the defendant has created a public prejudice that predetermines this family as the perpetrator of any possible harm that may come to the MP’s family in the future.
This, firstly, orients the criminal prosecution bodies in advance so that, for any possible incident against the MP’s family, suspicion will automatically fall on the Bajri family, regardless of the real perpetrator.
Second, and more seriously, it creates a “ready-made culprit” that can be exploited by people who are actually in conflict with the Bajri clan. Such people, knowing that responsibility would be attributed to the Bajrais in advance due to the MP’s public statement, may intentionally harm her family members precisely to blame the Bajri family and target them for criminal prosecution for an offense they did not commit.
In this way, the false accusation not only violates honor, but also increases in a concrete and foreseeable way the risk that the Bajri family will be unjustly accused and prosecuted for acts they did not commit.
III. ON IMMUNITY AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENT
The immunity of Article 73 of the Constitution protects opinions expressed in the exercise of parliamentary function (e.g. from the floor of the Assembly). The statement was made on social networks, outside the exercise of function, and is therefore not included in the protection of immunity.
The status of a deputy does not exclude criminal liability for false public accusations. In the case publicly known as “Babale”, former deputy Ervin Salianji did not file a formal report with the authorities, but published materials in which he attributed the commission of a criminal offense (drug trafficking) to the brother of the former Minister of the Interior; criminal proceedings were registered based on the report of the injured party.
The court rejected his defense that he had not filed a “report” and that he was acting within the framework of freedom of political expression, and found him guilty of “false reporting”, sentencing him to 1 year in prison (Tirana District Court, decision no. 2900, dated 18.12.2019; upheld by the Appeal on 26.09.2024; the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on 11.03.2025). According to Article 71 of the Constitution, a conviction by final decision brings about the termination of the deputy’s mandate. This precedent shows that: (i) the publication of a false accusation, even without a formal complaint to the authorities, is sufficient for this offense; (ii) the case can begin with the report of the injured party; and (iii) the deputy’s freedom of political expression is not a shield against criminal liability.
This precedent shows that a member of parliament’s freedom of political expression is not a shield against criminal liability for false public accusations.
IV. EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING CIRCUMSTANCES
I. The image of the post on social networks, with the date and time — saved.
II. Media publications reproducing the statement (list of links and channels).
III. Decisions on security measures “arrest in prison” for members of the Bajri family — which prove the deprivation of liberty and the factual inability to carry out the alleged actions.
IV. Public statement of the legal representative of the Bajri family (Av. Sokol Tahiraj) who has disputed the claims and has requested the presentation of evidence to the institutions.
V. REQUEST
In light of the above, I request the Prosecutor’s Office:
I. To register this report and initiate criminal proceedings;
II. To investigate the veracity of the statements and the criminal liability of MP Marjana Koçeku, as well as the reasons why she made such a statement and which persons prompted her;
III. To immediately secure and preserve the original post on social networks and its technical data, before deleting it;
IV. To administer the above-mentioned evidence and to notify me of the actions taken, according to the rights of the complainant.
Prosecutors: Defense attorney:
BEHAR BRAJOVIQ, Sokol Tahiraj,
SAFET RUSTEMI, “the announcement says.
Top Channel