Findings of Mepa preliminary report remain undisclosed

A lawyer for Mepa yesterday objected to the planning watchdog's former investigating officer divulging details of a preliminary report on the controversial Marsascala waste recycling plant while testifying before a judicial assistant.

Architect Carmel Cacopardo, the former investigating officer within the audit office, was testifying in a court case filed by the Marsascala local council against Mepa over the Sant'Antnin waste recycling plant. The new plant is expected to begin its operation by the end of this month.

The committee contesting the development has been campaigning for the publication of this report, claiming its contents would expose gross irregularities in the process leading to the approval of the facility's upgrade.

Mr Cacopardo explained that throughout December 2006 the Mepa audit office had received a number of complaints on the case and he had been instructed by his superior - audit officer Joseph Falzon - to carry out an investigation into the complaints.

Nine complaints had been received and he investigated all of them in January and in the beginning of February last year. He compiled his report, still considered as a draft, and handed it over to Mr Falzon for his approval. He said that by February 22 his report was ready and submitted to Mr Falzon, who, in turn, submitted it to the Mepa chairman for his feedback.

Instead of giving its feedback, Mepa wrote to the Ombudsman requesting him to intervene because, according to them, the findings of such investigations should not be published, on grounds that it would be prejudicial to the appeal filed before the Mepa Appeals Board. The Ombudsman had upheld Mepa's interpretation and advised the audit officer not to release the document.

Asked by the committee's lawyer, Owen Bonnici, about the details of the complaints the audit office received, Mr Cacopardo explained that most of them dealt with the procedure followed when approving the application.

The complaints dealt with the comparability study of alternative sites, that the environment impact assessment did not delve into health issues, that the plans were only available for the objectors to see some time before the Mepa hearing, that there was not enough space for everyone at the Mepa offices and that the Mepa board had not discussed the matter after the objectors made their points but simply proceeded with the vote.

He said he compiled a 21-page report.

Dr Bonnici asked about the findings on each complaint but Mepa lawyer Ian Stafrace objected to the question, saying the report had not yet been finalised because Mr Falzon had stopped the investigation process upon the Ombudsman's recommendation. He said Mepa's objection was about the procedure (that such reports are published) and not because it did not want the findings of the report published.

Following a heated discussion, Mr Cacopardo explained that both he and Mr Falzon had not agreed with the Ombudsman's recommendation. He said Mr Falzon could have ignored the recommendation but had decided to put the investigation on hold.

When called to the witness stand, Mr Falzon said he had decided to accept the Ombudsman's recommendation in view of the pending appeal. When he sent the preliminary report to the Mepa chairman, his term of office was due to expire so he had asked for a quick reply because he wanted to settle the issue before terminating his term.

Mr Falzon said such reports should be made public for the sake of transparency and that it was in Mepa's interest that these reports are published.

Speaking about why he had decided to uphold the Ombudsman's recommendation, Mr Falzon said the Ombudsman is a legal man and had been in the job for a number of years.

Evidence was being heard by Judicial Assistant Maria Dolores Gauci who is assisting Mr Justice Joseph R. Micallef in this case.

The case continues.