The Ombudsman has declared that the Malta Environment and Planning Authority's Audit Officer was right to communicate his reports to interested parties, including complainants.

In a nine-page report released yesterday, the Ombudsman, Chief Justice Emeritus Joseph Said Pullicino, concluded that Mepa's interpretation of section 17C of the Planning Development Act was incorrect and that the Audit Officer was entitled to give a copy of his report to interested persons who, in his opinion, have a right to it.

The Ombudsman pronounced his decision after Mepa's audit officer Joseph Falzon requested his advice on a matter of principle of good administration.

Mr Falzon referred the matter to the Ombudsman last October and informed him that when the Mepa Audit Office was established in April 2004, he had consulted then Ombudsman Joe Sammut on how the audit office should operate.

Mr Sammut had advised that a copy of a report should be handed over to the complainant if necessary.

However, Mepa objected to this practice, claiming that the Development Planning Act precluded him from doing so. Mr Falzon said he disagreed with this interpretation.

The Ombudsman argued that Mepa's audit officer was raising a matter of substantial public interest regarding the nature of his office, directly affecting the rights and interest of citizens, which the Ombudsman was duty bound to investigate.

The Ombudsman said: "The audit officer should not be seen to be, and should not act in, a state of contrast and continuous conflict with the authority but rather as a means to promote its efficiency.

"His essential duty remains that of providing a check on possible arbitrary or improper use of power and a break on inefficiency and dereliction of duty. In this respect, therefore, the nature of the office of audit officer can be likened to that of the Ombudsman insofar as the audit officer can be considered to be, by definition, a defender of people's rights and interests," the Ombudsman said.

It was therefore "right and proper" for the audit officer to assert his autonomy and jealously guard his independence. He had the duty to do so and the authority was bound to refrain from any act that seeks to undermine and weaken the audit officer's authority.

The Ombudsman said there was no doubt that the investigation carried out by the audit officer into a complaint made by a citizen directly affected one's rights or interests and there was no doubt that a complainant submitting a case before the audit officer had the right to be informed whether his rights and interests were correctly evaluated and determined by Mepa.