Enver Hasani letter to UPA institutions: Rector Arben Hajrullahu won academic appeal by voting three times for himself

At that meeting, it is set to investigate the academic establishment of former UPI leaders in post-war Kosovo, including current Rector Arben Hajrullahu. He has mostly coveted Hasan's name during the meeting, urging the senators to vote for degradation because, according to him, Hasan has won it irregularly.

But in a letter sent to Rector, Senate, August and other institutions in the country Hasani says “rector Hajrullahu has no right to affect judicial acts imposed under the old law”.

Hasani says the Rector Hajrullahu in the Political Science Cathedral has participated and voted for itself in order to advance him in calling the professor fair (like!).

“In fact, he has participated, led and voted in the Political Science Cathedral, impacting the formation of his review commission, determining the number of hours, and in other aspects of the process that have since been passed for approval to the Faculty Council and beyond the Senate of the University of Pristina, as described above” Hasani writes.

This circumstance makes Rector Hajrullahu completely unworthy of the sector post and any function associated with university professor ethics. To clear his name and ensure that this process is legitimate and clean, Rector Hajrullahu must send this issue to the APK itself, so that this specialised institution can give its opinion and assessment of the situation”.

Following the full letter that has come to the Journal Express address:

Dear Rector Hajrullahu,

Dear members of the Senate,

The paper you have ahead has three dimensions: civil, criminal and administrative (with civilian and criminal elements).

The first dimension has to do with a personal issue, which can only be resolved through a court indictment. More specifically, at the Senate's meeting of November 27th, 2024, Rector Hajrullahu, for no reason, offended and offended my personal dignity, that of the former Qerim Qerim, all members of the International Century and Kosovo Law Community as a whole. For this reason, I have decided to file a lawsuit against Rector Hajrullahu in the coming days in order to establish justice in the country. Silence in the face of such conduct, unacceptable and under any proper level for a university reactor, would be contrary to the nature of my character and my social and intellectual profile.

Once I protocol the indictment to the competent court, I'll let you know by sharing relevant details.

As for other colleagues, they are free to decide about the steps they will take if they choose to act on the issue.

Bringing the Rector Hajrullahu to the Senate meeting on November 27th 2024 also has a criminal dimension, which -- although currently seemingly unclear -- undoubtedly contains some elements of the criminal act of abuse of official office. These elements, depending on further behavior of the Rector Hajrullahu, can be completed and taken full form in the future.

As a loyal citizen of this country and former senior Kosovo State official, including duties as former rector, dean, chief and founder of the Department of Political Sciences, as well as other important positions held abroad on behalf of Kosovo I consider it necessary to inform Rector Hajrullahu of the direction to be pursued.

In other words, the purpose of these lines is to consciously become Rector Hajrullahu of the possible consequences of his future behavior, which could objectively put him in the criminal zone. This is because his promise to do so to the end is to establish a commission that will assess the judicial acts imposed under old laws clearly constitute a criminal offence of abuse of official office. Such an act would seriously violate judicial security, an essential element of the rule of law in Kosovo. This argument will be explained in detail below.

That way that Rector Hajrullahu learns to follow, by himself was named “the amendment to the legitimacy of UP”, based on Law No. 05L -031 for 2016 General Administratoral Process (back: “05 L-031” This law, in its Article 157, says the following: “Finalisation of the initiated and unfinished procedures in the date of the entry into force of this Law, will continue according to previous legal provisions, which have regulated administrative procedure”.

With “previous legal oversight” the provisions of Law No. 02/L-28 for the 2007 Administrative Process (Next: “Law No. 02/L-28”. This law makes a clear distinction between relative inadequacy and absolute worthlessness

Hajrullahu seems to confuse it, treating these two categories as equivalent. Relatively worthless acts can be challenged only within the set deadlines, which are envisioned by law. This is because violations in such cases are considered curable within a certain time through available legal means.

While absolutely worthless acts have no time limit to challenge.

These acts are considered worthless by their very nature because of serious and fundamental violations of the law, such as cases of fraud, open conflict of interest, the use of counterfeit documents, or other violations that make the judicial act unacceptable from the start. This distinction is essential to understanding what acts can be destroyed and under what circumstances, respecting principles of legal security and rule of law.

In fact, what Rector Hajrullahu was talking about is acts of relative worthlessness, rather than acts he called arbitrary “acts of absolute worthlessness” when it included my decision to advance in this category. This interpretation is completely incorrect. Rector Hajrullahu wrongly equates the administrative acts of the pre-accession period of Law No. 05 L-031 with those released during the period when Law No. 02/L-28.

In summary: Act of relative worthlessness that is regulated according to Law No. 02/L-28, can't be touched. Any intervention in these acts brings direct criminal responsibility to those who abolish or cancel them. For such acts, the law allows no such action.

I let sector Hajrullahu know that in my case, Article 91 of Law No. 02/L-28, and no other law. This article clearly defines relative worthlessness, setting definite deadlines and procedures for challenging administrative acts with this character.

Acts I produced in harmony with Article 91 of Law No. 02/L-28 carries the nature of relative worthlessness and cannot be challenged under any circumstances by the Pristina University Senate or any other authority in this country.

I stress this because Rector Hajrullahu seems to make no distinction between relative worthlessness and absolute worthlessness. He wrongly thinks he can form commissions arbitraryly to decide on issues related to relative worthlessness, which is entirely contrary to law in power.

The only possible exception is when violations of the law have the nature of absolute inadequacy, such as, for example, the cases when one is found to have used a forged doctor (as is the case with Avni Puka, the subordinate of the Hajrullahu Rector, who has used an invalid degree without having a pass on NARIC to advance on the current call), or when a dissertation is considered as plagiarature, and similar cases arranged by the NST Law. 05 L-031. In such cases, there is no deadline for canceling such acts by competent organs. In such cases, restoring legitimacy implies activating state mechanisms, where the Senate is one of the key links of this process of re-establishing legitimacy.

The Senate, in no case, has the ability to assess the legality of legal acts that are relatively invalid and established and proclaimed in accordance with Law No. 02/L-28. These acts also include those related to the false charges made by Rector Hajrullahu regarding the academic advancement of the author of these lines. He said I'm paraphrasing freely, once we're getting his academic call back, because he's going to compete again and get the same call because he deserves it. This is a completely absurd situation from the point of view of legitimacy.

I'm making this clarification to show Rector Hajrullahu that his interpretation of November 27, 2024 takes him directly to a criminal offence of the official task. He is giving himself the right to exercise control over the legality of judicial acts issued under a law that is already in no place and involving issues of relative worthlessness. These actions are part of a criminal offense that is in the process of development by the Rector Hajrullahu, as mentioned earlier.

Put another way, Rector Hajrullahu has no right to affect judicial acts imposed by the old law. The current Senate cannot assess the legality of the work of previous Senates. This constitutes a clean criminal act. According to Law No. The Senate, with state bodies, can take action only when it comes to acts of administration that have absolute worthlessness, such as the use of a forged degree for a promotion by Mr. Avni Puka, the dissertation listed as plagiarization, and any other case where offense is such that it cannot be healed with standard legal means within a certain period. Any action by the Rector Hajrullahu aimed at changing the judicial acts established in accordance with Article 91 of Law No. 02/L-28, which is now out of force, constitutes a clean criminal act.

The law that Rector Hajrullahu quoted that day is Law No. 05 L-031. However, the reasonings for implementing this law were totally arbitrary and without any legal basis. Actually, they were reasonings of moral nature, which have no legal value. According to the Kosovo Constitution, our country is a society where the law rules and where there is a division and balance of powers.

The rector of a public university in Kosovo is not, and cannot be, a power in itself! Every reactor should be under the rule of law. If Rector Hajrullahu wants to and insists on becoming a public moral guardian, he then passes beyond the law's ground and enters the field of moral reasoning. To do so, however, he must be a worthy example of this role - a leading figure, of integrity, and responsible because it is paid by our taxes as head of the university. According to the European Convention on Human Rights (KEDNJ), other criteria of morality and judicial-public responsibility are valid.

Next, I want to move to the third dimension, which is at the same time civilian and administrative, but there are also criminal elements due to the conscious action of sector Hajrullahu. The nature of the act in this case is linked to absolute worthlessness, which can be destroyed (annuised) at any time, with a retroactive effect (resistant). I have in mind his behavior in the case of his choice in his final call as a regular professor at the Faculty of Philosophy. The following situation applies to the provisions of Law No. 05L-031, currently in force, because it's about an absolutely invalid act, where there are no time limits to canceling administrative acts put in absolute violation of the law. Let us further consider this situation.

On November 27, 2024, the Senate, at the eighth point of the agenda, reviewed and decided on a report by the Agency for Prevention of Corruption (APK). During this meeting, several colleagues from the philosophical faculty were abolished in the respective academic calls, simply because they were present when the issue of their academic calls was discussed and decided. In the case that I am clarifying here, regarding Rector Hajrullahu, the situation is much more serious, since not only is it about his participation in all phases of decision-making for his academic call as a regular professor but also about his voting in decisions that have led to the gaining of the professional call. This, of course, constitutes an absolute invalid act.

Now is the time to explain to you in more detail what this is about, based on the materials found in the archive of the philosophical faculty and the Pristina University archive. These materials are also in possession of our colleagues who have been involved in this process of advancing Rector Hajrullahu in calling the regular professor, a completely illegal advance.

According to the Law provisions No. 05L-031, which is currently in force, this advancement has the nature of absolute worthlessness and, as such, it can be broken (annuised) at any time without time. Let us examine this matter more closely.

On May 4th 2022, the competition for the Faculty of Philosophy was announced. prot. 967, 4/25/2022, position 3, philosophical faculty. As part of the execution of this competition, on May 19, 2022, the meeting of the Council of the Faculty of Philosophy has been held, where the formation of the assessment commission (the Council's assembly, prot, has been voted. No. 1875/01, 19/05/2022 The vote on forming the assessment commission.

The next step was the next meeting of the faculty Council, held on May 26th 2022, where references for the bulletin were voted. No. 2192/01, 26/05/2022 The bulletin vote.

The final phase has been the meeting of the Council of the Faculty of Philosophy, held on 21 June 2022, where it was voted for references to the university Senate (the Council's Assembly, prot. No. 2322/01, 21/06/2022 ) the Senate referral vote.

In all the aforementioned phases, Rector Hajrullahu has participated and voted for himself in order to advance him in calling the regular professor (like!). In fact, he has participated, has led and voted in the Political Science Cathedral, impacting the formation of his review commission, establishing the number of hours, and in other aspects of the process that have since been passed for approval to the Council of Faculty and beyond the Senate of the University of Pristina, as described earlier.

This situation makes Rector Hajrullahu completely unworthy of the position of the reactor and any function associated with university professor's ethics. To clear his name and ensure that this process is legitimate and clean, Rector Hajrullahu must send this issue to the APK itself, so that this specialised institution can give its opinion and assessment of the situation.

The Senate, on the date mentioned, at the eighth point of the agenda, as I said before, abolished decisions for advancement in academic calls by some of the philosophical faculty colleagues, precisely because of violation of the rules on conflict of interest, outlined by the APK's opinion. If this case of the Rector Hajrullahu were silent, then it would be unethical, discriminating and unjust to colleagues who were eliminated in line with the Senate's agenda. This is especially disturbing to the simple fact that this case is still fresh, and it is regulated according to Law No. 05L-031, currently in force, and has the nature of absolute worthlessness, directly connecting to the head of the University of Pristina, Rector Hajrullahu.

Honestly,

Enver