Freeport architect explains role with Polidano Bros

Freeport architect Joe Bugeja said yesterday he was never on the payroll of Polidano Bros or that the contractor had engaged him "to provide professional services on other projects".

Mr Bugeja made the declaration in a statement issued through his legal counsel Joe Zammit Maempel. This followed a statement issued by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority which was reported by The Times last Wednesday under the heading Illegal Dumping At Sea: Freeport Architect Was Polidano's Consultant.

Mr Bugeja said:

"1. On December 15, 2003, after a public call issued by Wasteserv, I was accepted and commissioned by Wasteserv to act as 'operations monitoring officer' for the dumping of inert waste in a number of quarries operated by Polidano Brothers which had a number of permits to receive construction and demolition waste and an agreement between Wasteserv, Mepa and myself was entered into.

"2. This service was rendered for a number of months. Two invoices were issued by me to Wasteserv (i) the first dated January 29, 2004 for Lm400 approx. and (ii) the second dated March 5, 2004 for Lm200 approx. in conformity with my agreement with Wasteserv.

"3. After receipt of the second invoice, Wasteserv informed me that in conformity with the relative Mepa permits and in conformity with the agreement Wasteserv had with the contractor Polidano Bros, my professional fees had to be borne by the contractor. Condition 14 of the Mepa permits (PA 4151/03, PA3445/03 and PA 3389/03) states that 'The Mepa shall, prior to the issue of this permit appoint at the applicant's expense a team of consultants (operations monitoring team) to undertake the monitoring of the development until completion' - these Mepa permits are available on the Mepa website. Furthermore, article 55 of volume 3 of the specifications of the waste management permit also provided that the cost of the monitoring team was at the cost of the contractor, Polidano Bros.

"4. As a result of the above, my invoices were readdressed to Polidano Bros who settled these invoices.

"5. The declaration by Polidano Bros made in May 2004 to Wasteserv that 'I was in their books' referred to by Mepa in their press release of August 29, 2006 relates purely and solely to the method of payment for the professional services rendered in connection with the above mentioned appointment.

"6. Since I received no further assignments from Mepa and/or Wasteserv, I performed no further monitoring duties after the first two quarries were closed off late in 2004.

"7. I categorically deny that I ever was or am on the payroll of Polidano Bros and/or that Polidano Bros had engaged me 'to provide professional services on other projects' as declared by Mepa in its press release of August 29, 2006. The only payments made by Polidano Bros to me were the payments mentioned above.

"8. Since 2004, I have had no responsibility to monitor any waste-fill to or from quarries."

Mepa's public relations office also issued a clarification about the matter:

"Mepa refers to the statement issued on August 29, 2006 in relation to the 'Illegal dumping at Freeport'.

"Mepa had said that 'Around May 2004, following a declaration by the applicant that he had engaged the professional services of Architect Joe Bugeja on other projects, Mepa did not accept Perit Bugeja on assignments related to this contract. Permits issued after this date are being inspected by Mepa officers'.

"The authority wished to clarify the reason why Architect Joe Bugeja was no longer acceptable to Mepa to act as monitor in relation to the permits issued by it for the infilling of quarries with inert waste by Messrs Polidano Brothers. This decision was taken since Polidano Brothers had informed Wasteserv that Perit Bugeja '.... has been on our [Polidano] books...' since April 1, 2004. This was in breach of the monitoring agreement entered into between Mepa, Perit Bugeja, Wasteserv and Polidano Brothers.

"Thus, the statement that Perit Joe Bugeja 'has been in our (Polidano) books... since April 1, 2004' referred solely to the issue of the modality of payment as 'monitor'.

"This is the correct interpretation of the phrase 'on other projects' referred to in Mepa's press release of August 29, 2006. The authority does not endorse any other interpretation and any inconvenience is regretted."

Editorial note: The Times based its news item of August 30 on the statement issued by Mepa. Any inconvenience to Mr Bugeja is, therefore, regretted.