Muhaxheri denies violations, MLGA declares property exchange decision illegal

The investigative show titled "From Water to Concrete: Suspicions of a Million-Dollar Property Swap Arrangement by the Municipality of Peja", revealed a suspicious scheme to swap a property worth nearly 2 million in the Municipality of Peja. A decision that essentially directs this public asset towards the company Qehaja Group sh.pk, known for building multi-story apartments.

On April 17, 2025, the Municipal Assembly in Peja had several items on the agenda for consideration. One of them was the exchange of municipal real estate worth nearly 2 million, with private owners, which is located on Konstantini i Madh Street or as it is otherwise called the property at the former Ambienti. With 17 votes in favor, the municipal assembly voted in favor of the mayor's proposal.

Considering that the Municipal Assembly's decision to exchange property, according to procedures, is sent to the Ministry of Local Government and Administration (MLGA) for review of legality, the Oath for Justice has requested a response from this department as well.

Although Mayor Muhaxheri believes that there is no illegality in the property exchange decision, the MLGA's response says the opposite.

According to their response, it is stated that the decision dated April 17, 2025 on the approval of the exchange of municipal immovable property with private owners was assessed as contrary to the provisions of the legislation in force.

also OATH OF JUSTICE December 28, 2026 The municipality voted for the exchange of the million-dollar property, despite the legal dispute with the Mataj family

"The request for review sent to the Municipality of Peja contains the reasons why the act was assessed to be in violation of the legislation in force. The Municipality of Peja has not taken the necessary actions, as requested by the MLGA, to harmonize the act, within the 30-day deadline, therefore the MLGA has sent the act in question to the Minister of Justice, who is competent to send the case to the competent court as defined in Article 9, point 4 of Law No. 08/L-284 on Administrative Review of Municipal Acts," the MLGA response states.

The Municipal Assembly in Peja approved the decision to exchange property, even though all the owners' properties in total did not reach the value of the municipal property. And, according to the decision, they were obliged to pay the difference in the total amount.

The MLGA, in the justification sent to the Municipality of Peja for the illegality of the decision, states that the Law on Local Self-Government stipulates that municipalities have the right to sell and lease movable and immovable property according to the law, with the exception of the sale of land which is regulated by a special law.

"In cases where the property of the municipality has been valued at a higher price by the Division for the Valuation of Immovable Property for Expropriation and Exchange at the Ministry of Finance, Labor and Transfers, as well as the legal restriction that the municipality cannot sell immovable property, the MLGA requires the Municipality of Peja to carry out the property exchange as determined by the law in force, which means that the properties of the municipality in financial terms should be equivalent or of lower financial value than the properties of the natural and legal persons that are the object of the exchange," states the MLGA's justification sent to the Municipality of Peja.

In a response to Oath for Justice, the State Attorney's Office indicated that, at the request of the MPA, it has taken legal action regarding the case.

Specifically, this body filed a lawsuit on July 17, 2025, at the Basic Court in Pristina, in the Department for Administrative Affairs.

also OATH OF JUSTICE December 28, 2026 "We change them even if we have to," Mayor Muhaxheri on changing land from water to construction land

In a response to Betimi për Drejtësi, the information and media communication office of the Basic Court in Pristina said that the case was received on July 17, 2025 and that the court continuously acts on cases based on the number and time submitted to the court.

Therefore, regarding the case in question, as stated in the response, procedural actions have not yet been taken, considering that there are older cases.