Ombudsman-Mepa audit officer talks risk being stalled

Talks between the Ombudsman and the Malta Environment and Planning Authority's (Mepa) audit officer over the future of the audit office risk being stalled by a difference of opinion on the appointment of the investigating officer.

If unsolved, the issue could re-ignite the controversy surrounding the audit office which hinged on the reappointment of former investigating officer Carmel Cacopardo.

To resolve the tug-of-war between Mepa and its auditor Joe Falzon, Ombudsman Joseph Said Pullicino had proposed that the audit office, and similar offices dealing with citizens' rights, such as the Children's Commissioner and the University ombudsman, be serviced by his Office.

The government accepted the proposal, urging the Ombudsman to start discussions immediately.

Mr Falzon told The Times that he and the Ombudsman are not agreeing on how the investigating officer should be appointed. He would not go into the specifics but said he would be formally making his comments to the Ombudsman in an upcoming meeting. When contacted, Dr Said Pullicino said the discussions were still ongoing. "I have made a set of proposals in line with the parameters agreed to by the Prime Minister. We have discussed the issues but I am still waiting for the auditor's response so, as far as I am concerned, there is no issue between us. We'll see when we discuss the auditor's official response," he said.

Mr Cacopardo's reappointment had become the centre of a bitter tug-of-war between Mepa chairman Andrew Calleja, Mr Falzon and Mr Cacopardo, and which eventually led to repeated resignation threats by the auditor.

Mepa insisted that Mr Cacopardo's position as auditor was untenable in view, among other things, of a conflict of interest stemming from the fact that he publicly questioned the credentials of the man appointed director for environment protection, a post for which Mr Cacopardo himself had applied.

Both the auditor and Mr Cacopardo rebutted the claims publicly, with Mr Falzon insisting that the choice of the investigating officer was ultimately his and not the authority's.

The authority eventually asked the Ombudsman to intervene. While turning down the request to step in as arbiter, the Ombudsman proposed that his office service the audit office's administrative needs.