Editorial

Governments in democratic countries very often resort to the setting up of inquiries whenever they want to deflect public attention from a case, a scandal or a controversy that is likely to rebound on their conduct. By the time the inquiry report is out, interest in the matter would have generally petered out and the government or authority involved would have escaped the direct onslaught that it would have otherwise received. Having said that, the government did the right thing in setting up an board of inquiry into the circumstances that led to a mudslide in Xemxija on January 21, leaving part of an apartment block hanging in mid-aid.

What clears the government from falling into the category of those setting up inquiries just for the sake of deflecting public attention from matters prejudicial to their interest is the fact that it has given the board of inquiry only six weeks within which to come out with its report. The case carries so many implications that it is important that the inquiry board does not take one single day more than that laid down by the government.

In fact, considering the widespread national reaction that the case has stirred, many would have expected the government to react earlier than it did. A mudslide leaving an apartment block hanging in mid-air is no joke for the people living in it. Which also makes it doubly surprising why so many politicians from the two main parties, usually so vocal over infringements, whether confirmed or otherwise, have stayed back from raising the case up till now. To their credit, Alternattiva Demokratika and Labour MP Joe Brincat were quick to make their voice heard.

Even though the case over the excavations at Xemxija is somewhat complicated, it is hard not to put what appear to be some basic questions. The Malta Environment and Planning Authority has pointed out that building development and ancillary stabilising works had been carried out in terms of an approved permit. In a letter sent to this newspaper, part of which is somewhat convoluted, it said, through its public relations officer, that since "some of the works" that had exceeded the permits on the approved site had already started being undertaken, the "site" was issued with enforcement notices.

When and where exactly did the contractor/developer exceed the works authorised in the permit? What other excavation work was carried out on site? In his adjournment speech in Parliament, Environment Minister George Pullicino said, after announcing the setting up of the inquiry, that it appeared that excavation and other works carried out on site had not been covered by Mepa permits and, although an enforcement notice was issued by the authority, initial investigations showed that not all possible steps were taken for the works to be stopped. Why?

The minister said the people responsible for these works had tried to justify their actions by arguing that they needed to eliminate the danger. But whether this was the case or not had yet to be established. In any case, was it necessary to excavate such a large tract to stabilise what had become dangerous in the first place? Does the site in fact fall outside the development scheme or not? If it is, why, for instance, has the contractor not been made to restore the site excavated to its original state?

These and other key questions people are asking about the Xemxija excavation works need to be answered adequately and, as it has been said earlier, not a moment later than within the time laid down for the inquiry.