Of mud and sand

The reaction by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority to the editorial published last Tuesday about the inquiry into the Xemxija mudslide is a classic example of a supposed watchdog - and a very powerful one at that - burying its head in the sand. Furthermore, the tone of the letter gives rise to fears that the inquiry report closes the chapter on the string of sins of commission and omission made by Mepa officials at whatever level.

Mepa's PRO, Sylvana DeBono, makes two main points, both dealing, directly or indirectly, with accountability and transparency.

In her first point - replying to that part of the editorial saying: "Contrary to what Mepa's chairman said last week, the report does point fingers. All one needs to do is read between the lines" - Ms DeBono first says that "if names of Mepa officials had to be mentioned, they would have been" and then, in the next sentence, adds that there "are names mentioned in the report and they are not between the lines". If that were the case, why did Mepa chairman Andrew Calleja, speaking to the press on April 11, rule out any disciplinary action being taken against the officials involved in the case, pointing out that the report does not single out anyone for blame? Or is Ms DeBono referring to names of people outside Mepa?

The underlying message conveyed by both Mr Calleja and Ms DeBono seems to be Mepa is unable or unwilling to proceed against any of its officials.

Mepa takes offence to comments made in the editorial on the role of its board members. Ms DeBono writes: "With regard to the comments about Mepa board being in blissful ignorance of the reports carried in the media about the mudslide, this assertion is gratuitous.

"Mepa did not think it wise to carry out a parallel inquiry when an independent public inquiry was being held with wider powers of investigation and definitely not subject to any form of pressure or interference directly or indirectly, from Mepa itself or any of its officials".

The point made by The Times in its editorial was that, once the matter had been reported in the press, Mepa board members should have been more pro-active. This point was raised in reaction to the board of inquiry's remarks that Mepa's main board was not informed of the goings-on.

The Times lauded both Environment Minister George Pullicino for ordering the inquiry and architect Joseph Falzon for the manner in which he and his team probed the matter. Definitely, such an inquiry was preferred to any one Mepa could have held.

But immediately after the Falzon Report was submitted, Mepa should have opened an internal inquiry to at least show the public it means business and to safeguard the credibility such an institution ought to enjoy. That it has not speaks volumes about the manner it is run.

Now, especially in view of the letter by Ms DeBono, the ball is completely in Mr Pullicino's court. The buck stops at his desk and he should not hesitate ordering an internal inquiry to complete what he started when he asked Prof. Falzon to look into the Xemxija mudslide.

The public and the media will continue to monitor what will happen to the Falzon Report - the silence maintained by the Labour opposition on the matter is deafening. In the meantime, the chairman and Mepa's board should consider their position.

Accountability must prevail. Otherwise, not only the house of Mepa will be left hanging in mid-air but also the government's.