Former Infrastructure Minister Pal Lekaj Sentenced to Three Years and Eight Months in €53 Million Highway Retrial
Kosovo’s Basic Court in Pristina again finds the former infrastructure minister and three former ministry officials guilty over an additional €53.1 million payment connected with the Arbën Xhaferi highway, reviving one of the country’s most prominent public-finance cases.
Former Kosovo Infrastructure Minister Pal Lekaj was sentenced on September 9, 2026, to three years and eight months in prison after a retrial in the case widely known as the “€53 million case.” The Basic Court in Pristina again found him guilty of abuse of office (keqpërdorim i detyrës zyrtare) in connection with additional payments made during construction of the Arbën Xhaferi highway. The verdict followed a lengthy retrial (rigjykim) after an earlier conviction had been overturned by the Court of Appeals. The renewed conviction (dënim) therefore represents another important stage rather than the final possible step in the judicial process.
Three former Infrastructure Ministry officials were convicted alongside Lekaj. His former political adviser Eset Berisha received a prison sentence (dënim) of three years and three months. Former ministry secretary Nebih Shatri and former public procurement director Besim Tahiri each received one year and eight months of imprisonment (burgim). Together, the four defendants received a combined custodial term (dënim me burg) of ten years and three months.
The case centres on an additional €53.1 million payment approved for the Bechtel & Enka consortium during construction of the Pristina–Hani i Elezit motorway. Prosecutors argued that the payment involved an improper allocation (ndarje fondesh) of public money connected with delays in the project. The highway, officially named Arbën Xhaferi, became one of Kosovo’s largest infrastructure investments (investime) and ultimately cost the public budget approximately €600 million. Its financial scale gave the case considerable political and judicial significance (rëndësi).
The 55-kilometre motorway connects Pristina with Hani i Elezit near Kosovo’s border with North Macedonia and was inaugurated in 2019. During construction, payment delays created a contractual dispute (mosmarrëveshje) concerning compensation allegedly owed to Bechtel & Enka. Kosovo’s government ultimately approved an additional €53 million compensation (dëmshpërblim) package for the contractor. Prosecutors later questioned the justification (arsyetim) for paying such a large amount.
A central element of the prosecution case involved Hill International, which had been contracted by the Infrastructure Ministry to supervise the project. The company provided technical, financial and legal oversight (mbikëqyrje) under a consultancy contract reportedly worth €8.7 million. Hill calculated that approximately €14 million should be recognised as legitimate liability (detyrim financiar) arising from the government’s failure to provide funding according to the original payment schedule. The much larger €53 million payment consequently created an alleged discrepancy (mospërputhje) of roughly €38 million.
According to the prosecution, the Hill International assessment was not properly presented to the government before the additional payment was approved. Prosecutors alleged that Lekaj and other officials failed to provide a crucial opinion (opinion profesional) showing the lower compensation estimate. This alleged omission (mosparaqitje) was important because ministers considering the payment did not have the full technical assessment available to them. The prosecution consequently argued that the defendants’ conduct caused substantial damage to the budget (dëm ndaj buxhetit) of Kosovo.
Reporting on the case has placed the alleged financial damage at approximately €38.3 million, essentially representing the difference between the amount Hill considered payable and the amount ultimately approved. Prosecutors treated this difference as evidence of serious mismanagement (keqmenaxhim) of public funds. The case consequently became one of Kosovo’s most prominent examples of alleged high-level corruption (korrupsion) connected with major infrastructure spending. Its political importance was amplified by the magnitude (përmasa) of the payment involved.
The four defendants were originally convicted by the Basic Court in Pristina on January 31, 2024. Lekaj initially received the same three-year-and-eight-month prison term (dënim me burg) that was imposed again in the 2026 retrial. Berisha, Shatri and Tahiri also received substantially the same penalties (masa ndëshkuese) as those later imposed during the second trial. The first judgment therefore established an initial finding of criminal responsibility (përgjegjësi penale) before the appeals process intervened.
The Court of Appeals later annulled that first judgment and returned the case for retrial in February 2025. The appellate court identified deficiencies in the original court’s reasoning (arsyetim juridik) concerning the role of Hill International and whether its opinion had legally decisive significance. It noted that the precise competence (kompetencë) of the supervisory company had not been sufficiently clarified in the first judgment. The retrial was therefore required to provide a more complete evidentiary assessment (vlerësim i provave) of the accusation.
This distinction is important because an appellate decision ordering a retrial does not necessarily mean that defendants have been declared innocent. Instead, it means the original judgment contained legal or procedural deficiencies (mangësi) serious enough to require another examination. The trial court must then reconsider the relevant evidence (prova) and address the concerns raised by the higher court. The September 2026 ruling shows that the retrial judges ultimately reached essentially the same conclusion (përfundim) regarding criminal responsibility.
During the retrial, the court again heard evidence concerning the financial management of the motorway project. A financial expert examined the legality (ligjshmëri) of documents connected with the additional payment and questioned aspects of the contractual arrangements. Testimony also examined whether Bechtel & Enka had formally submitted claims relating specifically to delayed payments (pagesa të vonuara). These issues formed part of a broader attempt to reconstruct the financial decision-making process (proces vendimmarrjeje) behind the €53 million allocation.
Former Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj also previously testified regarding the government’s knowledge of Hill International’s lower calculation. He said he was not aware at the relevant time that Hill had calculated a substantially smaller obligation (detyrim) of roughly €14 million. Prosecutors questioned whether government members had received sufficient disclosure (informacion të plotë) before approving the payment. The testimony reinforced the importance of determining how information moved through the government’s administrative hierarchy (hierarki administrative).
Lekaj has maintained that the payment was not simply his personal decision. His defence has emphasised the collective (kolektiv) character of the government decision and argued that the payment was approved by the cabinet rather than by the minister acting independently. Defence lawyers have also challenged the prosecution’s interpretation (interpretim) of the documentary evidence. They consequently argue that political or administrative participation in a government decision should not automatically establish individual criminal culpability (fajësi).
During a September 3 retrial hearing, Lekaj and the three other defendants chose not to provide new substantive testimony. Instead, they exercised their right to remain silent (të heshtin) while relying on statements made during earlier stages of the proceedings. The defence also challenged the relevance (rëndësi juridike) of certain pieces of evidence considered by the trial panel. This procedural strategy allowed the defendants to avoid additional self-incrimination (vetëinkriminim) while preserving arguments already contained in the case record.
Only six days later, the Special Department of the Basic Court announced the new guilty verdicts. The court found the defendants responsible for misuse (keqpërdorim) of official duties connected with the highway payment. The prosecution welcomed the renewed judgment (aktgjykim) after the lengthy retrial. The decision effectively restored the earlier finding of guilt (konstatim fajësie) that had been set aside when the Court of Appeals ordered the case to be reheard.
The court also imposed restrictions preventing the convicted former officials from exercising certain functions in public administration after their prison terms. Such measures are intended to prevent immediate re-entry (rikthim) into positions involving management of public resources. Additional occupational disqualification (ndalim ushtrimi funksioni) can be particularly important in corruption-related cases involving abuse of official authority. It reflects the principle that punishment may include protection of public integrity (integritet) as well as imprisonment.
The September judgment is nevertheless not necessarily the final legal outcome. The defendants can challenge the new ruling through the appellate process (proces apelimi) under Kosovo’s criminal-procedure system. Sentences generally become executable only when the judgment acquires final legal force (formë të prerë). Further review could therefore still affect either the convictions or the sentencing (caktim dënimi) imposed by the Basic Court.
The case has wider significance because large infrastructure projects create unusually high risks for public budgets when contracts are amended after construction has begun. Cost increases may sometimes be legitimate, but they require strong documentation (dokumentim) and independent verification. Governments also need transparent procurement governance (qeverisje të prokurimit) so that changes involving tens of millions of euros can be justified publicly. Without these safeguards, contractual amendments can create opportunities for financial abuse (abuzim financiar) or allegations of corruption.
Independent supervision was intended to provide one of those safeguards in the Arbën Xhaferi project. Hill International’s role illustrates the importance of specialised consultancy (konsulencë) when governments lack sufficient internal expertise to evaluate technically complex claims. However, external advisers are useful only when their findings are properly incorporated (përfshihen) into official decision-making. The case consequently raises broader questions about the practical effectiveness (efektivitet) of paying for independent expertise if political institutions do not fully consider its conclusions.
The controversy also demonstrates how payment delays themselves can create substantial costs for taxpayers. Governments entering major infrastructure contracts must maintain adequate budgetary planning (planifikim buxhetor) so contractors receive payments according to agreed schedules. Failure to do so can create legitimate claims for compensation (kompensim) arising from financing costs, delays or disruption. Stronger fiscal discipline (disiplinë fiskale) can therefore prevent expensive disputes before questions of corruption or criminal responsibility even arise.
The Arbën Xhaferi highway remains strategically important despite the legal controversy surrounding the additional payment. It improves Kosovo’s transport connectivity (lidhshmëri) with North Macedonia and regional road networks. Major infrastructure can produce long-term economic benefits (përfitime) through faster transport, trade and mobility. The challenge is ensuring that those benefits are obtained with sufficient value for money (vlerë për paratë) and without imposing unnecessary costs on taxpayers.
For Kosovo’s justice system, the retrial has become an important test of the handling of complex cases involving former senior officials. Prosecuting such cases requires institutional independence (pavarësi) because defendants may retain political influence or public support. Courts must simultaneously guarantee procedural fairness (drejtësi procedurale) and avoid treating political prominence as evidence of guilt. Public confidence ultimately depends on the credibility (besueshmëri) of both prosecution and defence rights.
The case also shows why retrials form an important part of criminal justice. Appellate courts provide a corrective mechanism (mekanizëm korrigjues) when first-instance judgments contain insufficient reasoning or procedural problems. Returning a case does not erase the underlying allegations but requires a more rigorous re-examination (rishqyrtim) of them. The second conviction demonstrates how judicial review (rishikim gjyqësor) can lead to the same outcome after deficiencies identified in an earlier judgment have been reconsidered.
The September 2026 ruling therefore represents a major development in a controversy that began with a government payment eight years earlier. Lekaj now faces three years and eight months of imprisonment (burgim) if the conviction ultimately becomes final. The case continues to symbolise the need for greater accountability (llogaridhënie) in the management of large public contracts. Its final significance will depend on whether the remaining appeals produce a definitive resolution (zgjidhje përfundimtare) to one of Kosovo’s most closely watched infrastructure and corruption cases.
Key Albanian Vocabulary
keqpërdorim i detyrës zyrtare abuse of office
rigjykim retrial
dënim conviction
burgim imprisonment
dënim me burg custodial term
ndarje fondesh allocation
investime investments
rëndësi significance
mosmarrëveshje dispute
dëmshpërblim compensation
arsyetim justification
mbikëqyrje oversight
detyrim financiar liability
mospërputhje discrepancy
opinion profesional opinion
mosparaqitje omission
dëm ndaj buxhetit damage to the budget
keqmenaxhim mismanagement
korrupsion corruption
përmasa magnitude
masa ndëshkuese penalties
përgjegjësi penale criminal responsibility
arsyetim juridik reasoning
kompetencë competence
vlerësim i provave evidentiary assessment
mangësi deficiencies
prova evidence
përfundim conclusion
ligjshmëri legality
pagesa të vonuara payments
proces vendimmarrjeje decision-making process
detyrim obligation
informacion të plotë disclosure
hierarki administrative administrative hierarchy
kolektiv collective
interpretim interpretation
fajësi culpability
të heshtin remain silent
rëndësi juridike relevance
vetëinkriminim self-incrimination
keqpërdorim misuse
aktgjykim judgment
konstatim fajësie finding of guilt
rikthim re-entry
ndalim ushtrimi funksioni disqualification
integritet integrity
proces apelimi appellate process
formë të prerë legal force
caktim dënimi sentencing
dokumentim documentation
qeverisje të prokurimit procurement governance
abuzim financiar financial abuse
konsulencë consultancy
përfshihen incorporated
efektivitet effectiveness
planifikim buxhetor budgetary planning
kompensim compensation
disiplinë fiskale discipline
lidhshmëri connectivity
përfitime benefits
vlerë për paratë value for money
pavarësi independence
drejtësi procedurale fairness
besueshmëri credibility
mekanizëm korrigjues corrective mechanism
rishqyrtim re-examination
rishikim gjyqësor review
llogaridhënie accountability
zgjidhje përfundimtare resolution
