Editorial

In the face of an avalanche of calls for his resignation over the Mistra corruption claims, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando keeps protesting his innocence with such consistency that many, particularly the constituents who voted for him in two districts, must be wondering if the situation in his regard is as ugly as it has been made out to be by the Labour Party. It is clear, however, that on the basis of the information made available up to now, Dr Pullicino Orlando and, also, the Nationalist Party, have a lot of explaining to do.

Dr Pullicino Orlando is promising to give the full version of the facts after the case is closed by the police. It is also the stand taken by both the Prime Minister and the Nationalist Party.

Putting so tight a lid on the case may appear somewhat strange, more so when in the days before the election, Dr Pullicino Orlando had so assiduously chased the Labour leader to make sure he would be present in case Alfred Sant made any allegations against him.

Seven days before the election, Dr Pullicino Orlando said he did not know the people who had applied for the building of an entertainment establishment on land he owned in Mistra. This is what he wrote in The Times: "I own a plot of land near the sea which has been rented out to others for some time now. Three years ago, these others applied for a permit to build an underground lavatory and an open-air dance floor less than two metres high. The only thing close is a well-known restaurant. The application has been pending all this time and no final decision has been made. I don't even know the applicants. I have never met them..."

Three days before the election, the Labour Party published the development contract which is said to bear his name and signature. The MLP said the document showed that Dr Pullicino Orlando, as owner of De Rohan Antiques Ltd, and Dominic Micallef, on behalf of DJRL Ltd, agreed that "the premises shall be used solely as an open-air entertainment (place), including nightclub, discotheque, bar, restaurant and pool facilities, and parking, which can provide amplified music to its clients up to four o'clock in the morning". Labour did not mince words: It said the contract proved that Dr Pullicino Orlando had lied when he said he did not know anything about this development.

When Dr Pullicino Orlando was specifically asked if he thought that the contract showed he did in fact know what was going on, he said: "I never said I didn't know. I didn't know all the details". In fact, according to a statement he released on Monday, he said it was the tenant who leased out his property that had informed him that a permit was being sought for a "limited-scale development". On the basis of all this, it would appear that Dr Pullicino Orlando at best overlooked the possibility, if not the probability, that the development for which the permit was being sought would damage the ecologically-sensitive site.

An outline development plan was eventually approved by the Development Control Commission, an action slammed in no uncertain manner by the Mepa's auditor, who said in his report that the DCC failed to abide by the Development Planning Act provisions when they went against the recommendation of the Planning Directorate without justifying their actions on planning grounds.

The whole matter is mired in outstanding questions and some of the subsidiary issues that it spawned are likely to keep the controversy alive for many weeks to come. What is most important at this stage is for the police investigations to be concluded as soon as possible so that the party to which Dr Pullicino Orlando belongs and the many constituents who voted for him would know exactly where they stand in their relations with the politician. He would also be in a position to put the record straight.