Prishtina, 6 March 2026
Dear citizens,
Dear journalists present,
Good afternoon, everyone,
First, allow me to thank the 66 majority MPs—indeed all of them—who last night responded positively and attended the Assembly session, respected constitutionality, and took part when the process to elect the new President of the Republic of Kosovo began.
In addition to the 57 MPs of Vetëvendosje Movement and the Guxo Party, there were also 9 MPs from minority communities: 2 Bosniaks, 2 Turks, 2 Egyptians, 1 Serb, 1 Roma, and 1 Ashkali. I thank each and every one of them.
However, the process did not even complete the first round because all MPs from the opposition parties—PDK, LDK, AAK—as well as the party that continues to be directed from Belgrade, the Serb List, were absent.
At least 80 MPs needed to be present to meet the quorum.
You all saw it last night: the scene in the plenary hall of the Assembly of the Republic—those who were there were at the center; those who were not there were absent entirely, because they simply did not come. None of the absent MPs notified the Speaker of the Assembly, Ms. Albulena Haxhiu, of the reason for their absence. Therefore, this matter is now before the Constitutional Court.
It is the constitutional duty of MPs to perform the responsibilities for which they were elected by the people of Kosovo in the extraordinary early elections of 28 December 2025, and to come to their workplace—the plenary sessions—and participate and vote.
We are now in a situation where I do not believe we can speak of new elections without first hearing the Constitutional Court’s word, since there are disagreements and a case before them. They now have a matter that must be addressed.
MPs elected for four years in the tenth legislature did not complete even four weeks of their mandate, and this morning we were informed by the media that, by decree, the Assembly has been dissolved.
Article 86, paragraph 6 of the Constitution provides that the Assembly is dissolved if, in the third vote, no candidate is elected President—that is, if none of the candidates receives 61 votes. We did not reach that stage. Two candidates were presented last night, Glauk Konjufca and Fatmire Mulhaxha-Kollçaku, but not even the first round was completed, let alone the third.
From the wording of this provision, Article 86, paragraph 6, it is clear that dissolution of the Assembly is directly linked to the completion of the voting procedure—after three rounds have taken place and the third has failed to elect a President. Last night, we merely began the first round; we were nowhere near the end of the third.
The Constitution also provides another mechanism to avoid institutional deadlock. Under Article 82, paragraph 3, if within 60 days from the start of the presidential election procedure no President is elected, the Assembly is dissolved. So, from the moment the procedure begins, 60 days must pass. If a President is elected within that time, very good; if not, then the Assembly must be dissolved and elections called. This provision sets a maximum time limit and does not necessarily require three rounds of voting. It can be completed in the first round; the second round begins only if the first round is unsuccessful, and the third round only if the first and second rounds are unsuccessful.
In other words, Article 82, paragraph 3 concerns the final outcome of the process—whether a President has been elected within the timeframe. There is a 60-day deadline.
Meanwhile, last night we had only 60 minutes—just enough time to establish that we lacked the quorum of 80 MPs required to proceed.
In practice, a situation may arise where the Assembly begins the procedure but cannot conduct voting due to lack of quorum. In such a case, the third vote is not held, and therefore the formal condition of Article 86, paragraph 6 is not met because the voting procedure has not reached its conclusion. For this reason, dissolution cannot rely solely on that provision.
There must be failure in the third round for the Assembly to be dissolved and new elections prepared.
Nevertheless, lack of quorum can create procedural deadlock that prevents completion of the process for electing the President. To avoid such institutional blockage, the Constitution provides the mechanism in Article 82, paragraph 3—the 60-day limit. If no President is elected within that period, constitutional grounds arise for dissolution and the calling of elections.
You know that today is 6 March, not 5 May. If it were 5 May, it would be reasonable to say: the process of electing the President began, the electoral competition criterion for Glauk Konjufca and Fatmire Mulhaxha Kollçaku was met, 60 days passed, no President elected—therefore dissolve the Assembly. But today is 6 March, only one day later. The 60-day requirement has not been met.
Only in the event that we reach the third round of voting, if the third vote has not taken place under Article 86, paragraph 6, but 60 days have passed under Article 82, paragraph 3, dissolution may rely on that article.
If the third round of voting has not been conducted according to Article 86, Paragraph 6, and at the same time 60 days have not passed since the start of the procedure under Article 82, Paragraph 3, there is no constitutional basis for dissolution of the Assembly. In such a case, a decree dissolving the Assembly and calling elections is unconstitutional, since that authority may be exercised only in cases expressly provided by the Constitution.
Therefore, dear citizens and journalists, this constitutes another matter for the Constitutional Court. Let us wait calmly and patiently. Meanwhile, we continue governing properly and responsibly. However, what we were prevented from holding was a parliamentary session scheduled for this afternoon.
At 14:00, the Assembly was to convene to ratify several international agreements beneficial to the country.
Allow me to mention them briefly:
An agreement with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), worth €50 million, for energy efficiency and thermal insulation of buildings.
Another EBRD agreement worth €25 million for construction of the wastewater treatment plant in Podujeva.
An agreement with the European Investment Bank worth €33 million for construction of a solar panel park at KEK, a vital project to increase electricity generation capacity.
An agreement with the Saudi Fund for Development providing an additional €13 million to complete the expansion of the Prishtina–Mitrovica road, extremely necessary, especially now that the work had gained increased momentum.
In total, international agreements worth about €121 million for essential projects for our citizens.
With the dissolution of the Assembly, these projects and the €121 million in benefits for Kosovo’s citizens are prevented.
Dear citizens,
Dear journalists,
I had previously seen readiness for elections, but not eagerness for repeated new elections. Now I see even eagerness for repeated elections, which will take more time and may not bring solutions—because the issue is securing a quorum of 80 MPs in the chamber, which we all must secure together. We cannot wait to start the new elections in repeated campaigns where now we would have to say that I must secure at least 80 deputies. Therefore, it is not merely the issue of 61 votes but 80 votes. This requires a two-thirds and in this case, I do not believe repeated elections are a new solution; rather, there will be a kind of continuation of the legislative and institutional agony in general, which is unnecessary and, moreover, unjust. Elections would cost at least €10 million; it would be difficult to hold another round of elections without spending 10 million euros to repeat the result. There might be some minor movement, but I don’t see any significant difference.
Therefore, we are awaiting the ruling of the Constitutional Court so that, within these 60 days, starting from last night, we can complete the process of electing the President of the Republic.
Since we have passed the budget in second reading, I have done everything possible to reach agreement with opposition parties. I would say that the atmosphere is now different. The approach of the opposition leaders I have met, both from PDK and LDK, is different from that of 2025. The atmosphere is constructive, and the discussions are proper. I thank Bedri Hamza and Lumir Abdixhiku for this new approach.
Now we also meet and talk. I have met with Chairman Hamza twice, and with Chairman Abdixhiku three times. I regret that we haven’t met in the past three days. Since the day before yesterday, they were not willing to meet. I told them there is nothing wrong or harmful in meeting. But I also thank them for another thing: even when we haven’t met in person, we have communicated by phone. We don’t have secretaries or assistants acting as intermediaries. So, between the two opposition party chairmen, PDK and LDK, and myself, there is no intermediary, and this is a good sign of parliamentary practice and political cooperation in our Republic.
However, good atmosphere does not guarantee agreement. No one proposed a single name for President. A President is a proper name; how can we move forward if no one names a candidate?
Our starting point was a consensual president—someone who could secure quorum and broad support. Naturally, the Jashari family; obviously, Murat Jashari. Yet, we did not reach that point. I am convinced we would have elected a Jashari family member as President in the first round with a three-digit vote count—the first time in Kosovo’s institutional history. But that did not happen.
When consensus failed, the PDK leader publicly demanded that two presidential candidates be nominated by PDK and that I guarantee their election through a political deal, so that one of them is elected.
I explained that as a democratic Prime Minister and leader of Vetëvendosje, whose statute forbids blank agreements, I cannot sign deals without knowing names. I thank Mr. Hamza for understanding.
It is not possible for the chair of the Lëvizja Vetëvendosje leadership to present the PDK’s request that two candidates receive Vetëvendosje’s signatures. One of them would need 30 Vetëvendosje signatures; the other would need at least 8, since they have 22—I hope they do, but at least 8 would have to come from Vetëvendosje.
So Vetëvendosje was being asked to provide 38 of its MPs’ signatures to two PDK candidates and then guarantee that at least one of them would receive 61 votes, at least in the third round. We cannot make such political agreements. Frankly, it is hard for a person to make such an agreement even with themselves—let alone with someone else, and even less with a rival party.
Yet, I thank Chairman Bedri Hamza for his understanding of my refusal. And when they did not give me any names, I said, let me at least try to propose one myself. I suggested Andin Ukshin Hoti — Andin Ukshin Hoti — considering the family he comes from. Ukshin Hoti is unique. In terms of political philosophy, we do not have another mind like his, not only in Kosovo but across the entire Albanian nation since World War II.
Therefore, Andin Ukshin Hoti was our proposal, at least to begin discussions. It was not accepted — and not only was it rejected, but even further meetings to discuss other names were refused. Alright, if Andin Hoti is not acceptable, then tell me another name. I was never given one. I was only asked to sign a blank check — an agreement without names, but with an absolute commitment. I’m sorry, but that is not possible. Despite my full willingness to move forward, this is not a viable path.
Meanwhile, with the leader of the LDK, we discussed many political developments in Kosovo. They said they have 15 MPs. So, at best, they could gather half of the signatures needed for one candidate.
I expressed my readiness — both to PDK leader Bedri Hamza and LDK leader Lumir Abdixhiku — that the necessary signatures their candidates might need could be secured by us in Vetëvendosje. Such an offer was not accepted.
So, they did not collect their own signatures for their own proposals.
They did not give their signatures for someone else’s proposals.
They did not accept our signatures for their proposals.
They did not even accept our support in the form of signatures for their candidates, who could even have been outside their parties.
They also made no effort to jointly propose a common candidate, even though that too was possible.
22 plus 15 makes 37 — more than enough. Even if some withheld signatures, PDK and LDK could still have put forward a candidate. Adding the 6 MPs of AAK brings the total to 43 — more than sufficient to have a candidate. There was simply no interest or willingness.
Therefore, I regret that the positive atmosphere we had did not translate into concrete steps, let alone into the necessary agreement.
And you know what we did — the only thing we could do: we put forward a name. We did not nominate Glauk Konjufca 30 days before yesterday, but less than 30 hours before yesterday, when the session was called close to midnight. We wanted to give others a chance. But at the same time, we did not want to enter the final 24 hours with no candidate name at all — that is not good for the state of Kosovo. Entering the last 24 hours to elect a president with no names is not appropriate. That is why, one day before, we nominated Glauk Konjufca.
However, you know that with only one presidential candidate, a session cannot begin. Two names are required to constitute the minimum competition and to open proceedings.
We did not immediately nominate Fatmire Mulhaxha-Kollçaku either. We held long discussions in the party leadership and the parliamentary group. While we announced Glauk as a presidential candidate less than 30 hours before the deadline, we announced his opposing candidate, Fatmire Mulhaxha-Kollçaku, less than three hours before the deadline — because we did not want to impose names on others too early.
When it became clear that it was impossible to receive any names — whether from Bedri Hamza or from Lumir Abdixhiku — only then did we put forward our nominees. I had waited for them to give me names. They did not.
There is no president without a name. An anonymous president is not possible.
And now we find ourselves in a situation where, despite meeting the leaders of the two opposition parties for 12 days — more frequently and more intensively than in the past 12 years — constructiveness and correctness still did not produce an agreement.
Therefore, in this situation, dear journalists and dear citizens, we believe that under the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo we have 60 days to reach a solution and avoid elections — to find a new solution so that we do not have repeated elections.
Thank you again for your attention and patience. I am now ready to take your questions.
