Kosovo court sentences former minister Pal Lekaj in retrial of 53-million case
A Pristina court sentenced former Infrastructure Minister Pal Lekaj to prison in a retrial, a decision welcomed by prosecutors.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 9, 2026, 6:02 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 9, 2026, 6:02 a.m. ETFirst report
Kosovo court sentences former minister Pal Lekaj in retrial of 53-million case
The Basic Court in Pristina has sentenced former Infrastructure Minister Pal Lekaj to three years and eight months in prison in the retrial of the 53-million case, according to albeu.com. The court also sentenced Eset Berisha, former political adviser, Nebih Shatri, former Secretary-General, and Besim Tahiri, former Director of Public Procurement, in the same case, the report said.
The court found that the defendants acted jointly and intentionally when allocating the funds, albeu.com reported. The case is criminal and the document is a judgment from the district court. The prosecution welcomed the decision, according to the report.
The event is still developing; further details may emerge.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 10:07current
First published.
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 10:02current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.