Tirana Mayor's Case Puts Albanian Justice, U.S. Aid on Trial

NEW YORK, NY – March 11, 2026 – The legal battle surrounding Erion Veliaj, the detained Mayor of Tirana, Albania, has intensified as his international counsel accuses the country's premier anti-corruption body of systematic due process violations. In a scathing new report, the law firm Kasowitz LLP alleges that Albania's Special Structure Against Corruption and Organized Crime (SPAK)—an institution established with significant U.S. support—is actively undermining the mayor's right to a fair trial.

The report, released today, details efforts by SPAK to justify Veliaj's year-long pretrial detention by citing his lawful lobbying activities and obstructing his defense by withholding tens of thousands of pages of evidence. These allegations have escalated the case from a domestic legal dispute into an international incident, placing a spotlight on the effectiveness and integrity of Albania's justice reforms and putting pressure on the U.S. government to scrutinize an institution it helped create.

A Question of Due Process

At the heart of the new report are claims that SPAK is engaging in tactics that fundamentally compromise the legal process. Mayor Veliaj, who has been in pretrial detention since February 2025 on charges of corruption and money laundering, has allegedly been denied access to the evidence against him. The Kasowitz report states that SPAK has blocked the mayor and his legal team from reviewing nearly 60,000 pages of the case file, crippling their ability to prepare a defense.

While a three-judge panel recently pushed back against the prosecutor, ordering SPAK to provide the evidence and postponing the trial by two weeks, counsel for Veliaj remains skeptical. They argue that a two-week period is wholly insufficient for any defendant to realistically review and process such a voluminous amount of material, suggesting the move is a token gesture rather than a genuine remedy.

Veliaj's year-long detention itself has become a major point of contention. His legal team has repeatedly argued that his continued imprisonment is disproportionate and violates the European Convention on Human Rights. They point to the fact that 17 other co-defendants in the same case were released on minimal conditions, suggesting a "stark disparity" in treatment. This situation is reflective of a broader, systemic issue in Albania, which has one of the highest rates of pretrial detention among Council of Europe member states. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture has previously voiced serious concerns about this over-reliance on pre-trial detention in the country.

Adding to the due process concerns are the conditions of Veliaj's court appearances. The mayor has formally requested the removal of a "degrading and prejudicial" metal cage used during his hearings, citing European Court of Human Rights precedent that such measures violate a defendant's dignity and the presumption of innocence.

Political Retaliation or Rule of Law?

The most explosive claim in the latest report is that SPAK has attempted to justify Veliaj's prolonged detention by citing his U.S. lobbying efforts. Kasowitz argues that this is not a legally recognized criterion for detention and is instead a punitive measure designed to retaliate against the mayor for publicly challenging SPAK's conduct.

"SPAK's reliance on lawful advocacy and lobbying to justify Mayor Veliaj's continued unlawful detention in Albania is deeply troubling," said Daniel Fetterman, a partner at Kasowitz LLP and international counsel to Mayor Veliaj, in a statement. "Petitioning governments and speaking publicly about one's case is a fundamental democratic right and not a basis for imprisonment or punishment."

This accusation frames the prosecution not as a simple anti-corruption effort but as a potentially politically motivated campaign. The case is unfolding within Albania's deeply polarized political landscape. Prime Minister Edi Rama, a political ally and mentor to Veliaj, has broken his typical silence on judicial matters to publicly attack SPAK, accusing prosecutors of holding the mayor without sufficient evidence. Conversely, political opponents, including former Prime Minister Sali Berisha, have long accused Veliaj of corruption, viewing the prosecution as long-overdue justice.

This dual narrative—a crusading anti-graft body versus a politicized weapon of the state—has left observers questioning whether SPAK is upholding the rule of law or being used to settle political scores in a country where the line between justice and politics has often been blurred.

A U.S.-Backed Institution Under Scrutiny

The controversy surrounding the Veliaj case extends far beyond Albania's borders, directly implicating the United States. SPAK was established in 2019 as the centerpiece of a sweeping, internationally-backed justice reform aimed at tackling endemic corruption and paving the way for Albania's E.U. accession. The U.S. government, in particular, invested significant financial and advisory resources in its creation.

This deep American involvement is precisely why Kasowitz LLP is now formally appealing to the U.S. State Department and Department of Justice. The firm is asking the U.S. government to investigate the conduct of the very institution it helped build and fund.

"After more than one year of pre-trial detention and other serious due process violations in Mayor Veliaj's case, it is appropriate for the American government – which helped to establish and advise SPAK – to look into what has been going on and why this is occurring," Fetterman stated.

The appeal creates a delicate foreign policy dilemma for Washington. It also comes at a time of growing concern about the Albanian justice reforms. In late 2025, a U.S. diplomat publicly noted that it was "appropriate to reexamine whether justice reform is functioning as intended and delivering impartial justice for the Albanian people," citing case backlogs and delays that undermine due process.

The case against Erion Veliaj has thus become a critical test. For Albania, it is a test of its judicial independence and its commitment to democratic principles. For the United States and the European Union, it is a test of the effectiveness of their foreign aid and their ability to ensure that the institutions they sponsor are held to the highest international standards of justice.