Debate With Rama Over Territorial Map, Gorrea Insists: Divjaka Must Remain a Municipality, Mazniku Commission Got It Wrong

Divjaka Mayor Josip Gorrea has commented on his discussions with Prime Minister Edi Rama during a meeting held in Kuç on the new territorial division and the future of the local government unit he leads. He made it clear that he has not backed down from his position and continues to demand that Divjaka remain a separate municipality.

Gorrea explained that the meeting was held behind closed doors and that each mayor had an opportunity to present their views. According to him, the broad discussion within the political group represents an important step forward, while the prime minister kept the conversation open and gave everyone room to express themselves freely. At that meeting, Gorrea again opposed changing Divjaka’s status.

Speaking about the position he took during the discussions, the mayor said he was responsible for speaking only on his own behalf and not for others. He stressed that his position had always been clear, had not changed at any point from his previous statements, and that in Kuç he forcefully argued why Divjaka should continue to be a municipality.

The mayor also called into question the work of the Commission headed by Arbjan Mazniku. Gorrea said he had identified several inconsistencies and errors in the Commission’s materials, which he would make public.

During the debate, he said he had also presented a comparison between Lushnja and Divjaka. According to Gorrea, the quote used by the Commission may refer to a meeting attended by local government representatives.

Gorrea also drew attention to earlier statements by senior Socialist Party representatives. According to him, they had clearly stated, including at a meeting covered by the media, that no changes would be made in Fier County.

He added that during the meeting he firmly maintained that he had not been informed. The mayor confirmed that he would continue to demand that the Municipality of Divjaka be preserved, while his objections also concern the way the arguments supporting the proposed changes were constructed.