Thank goodness he is still there

Echoes of the recently concluded case of two Mepa scapegoats still reverberate, sometimes distortedly. One such echo came from Robert Musumeci (November 21) in a contribution that went awry on at least three instances.

1. Mr Musumeci wrote that "The Court of Magistrates found no irregularities despite strong accusations by Mepa's audit officer". Actually, the Court of Magistrates also found no "irregularities" with rape and murder simply because these criminal acts had nothing to do with the case brought before the court.

That case was one in which two members of the DCC were accused of committing illegal acts when all they did was follow Mepa standard procedure by attending meetings in camera, arranged by the Complaints and Liaison Office, with an applicant - and others - to discuss an application that was not merely still under judgment but was actually still under the judgment of these very same individuals, among others! The court found nothing wrong with the behaviour of these two individuals because, it said, Mepa had set up an office "precisely for this purpose", that is, for the purpose of arranging such meetings.

Mepa's audit officer considers "this purpose" (as opposed to the behaviour of the DCC members) illegal, if for no other reason because it is occult and, therefore, could give rise to abuse, so much so that the two members of the DCC who attended such meetings were then accused of trading in influence. (The court cleared both former DCC members of exercising private interests. The magistrate ruled that the elements of the crime had not been proven and that the two men were "of a certain professional integrity" and "could never be found guilty".)

2. Mr Musumeci also wrote about what the Ombudsman said recently but missed this part: "It was also incorrect to say that in the past the Ombudsman had warned (Mepa audit officer Joseph) Falzon not to investigate planning cases that were sub judice".

The Ombudsman was also reported to have said that "he also understood Mr Falzon's concern that construction could still go ahead even when the case was still sub judice and before the appeals board. 'This anomaly could seriously and irremediably prejudice the rights of interested parties as well as of society in general and should be addressed in the (Mepa) reform'".

All this leads to a very disturbing situation, which is this: While Mepa seems to have no qualms about arranging meetings, in camera, between some applicants and decision-makers with the specific purpose of discussing applications that are still sub judice and while Mepa also seems unperturbed by the fact that development work can proceed while an application is still sub judice before the appeals board, nonetheless the same Mepa seems to become very annoyed if its auditor investigates cases that are still sub judice. This attitude tends to be somewhat inconsistent except that it consistently gives undue advantage to certain developers, which, I suggest, is unlawful.

3. Mr Musumeci also mentioned "the higher establishment that exists today, be it the Ombudsman, the Magistrates' Court or the Civil Court of Appeal". But in as far as planning matters go such "higher establishment" does not exist at all if not in Parliament! Indeed, the Ombudsman was reported to have said that the "statement that the Ombudsman office was 'a higher institution' was not precise because it was autonomous". And, in its decision of October 28, the Magistrates' Court made it clear that it has no competence in matters concerning the processing of planning applications or decisions based on planning grounds. The same applies to the Court of Appeal. It is clear, therefore, that none of these constitute "the higher establishment" in the sense alleged by Mr Musumeci.

Finally, Mr Musumeci did make one valid point when he wrote that "it is of the utmost importance that such positions (as the Mepa auditor's) are given to people with a strong personality who ride roughshod over gossip and stick to their guns in their delivery irrespective of public outcry."

This is exactly the kind of auditor Mepa has in Mr Falzon. Thank goodness he is still there.

Source: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091223/opinion/thank-goodness-he-is-still-there