It was not only Pontius Pilate who puzzled what is truth. In various circumstances it has many faces. The difficulty lies in finding out the true one. One such instance is that of the role Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando played in the Mistra affair. Many details have been bared since Alfred Sant, the former leader of the Opposition, broke the story in the last phase of the general election campaign. Many questions were raised, including whether the MP had told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the electorate, and to his own leader.
I do not feel that the man will be found guilty of having committed a crime. It does appear, however, that he was very economical with the truth, in the various statements he made on the issue. That conclusion is based on what the Prime Minister said and in what Pullicino Orlando admitted.
Lawrence Gonzi told TV journalist Reno Bugeja, when he quizzed him on the issue in his programme Dissett shortly after the election result: "What I found out about the contract (covering the use of Pullicino Orlando's land at Mistra) was made public... I knew that there was some informal agreement - that was the description - but I didn't have all the details..."
The sting lay in the tail. It was Dr Pullicino Orlando who had "all the details". Going by what his leader said, the MP did not give all of them to Gonzi. He did not give all of them to the public, either. Fuller details were doled out through developments independent of the MP.
The bare details were simple enough. The MP had bought a piece of land in the Mistra Bay area. Years later he rented it out. Later on an application was filed with the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (not by Pullicino Orlando) to develop the land to house an entertainment complex of sorts. A well-known tourism consultant, George Micallef, was asked to prepare a report on the project from the tourism standpoint for the would-be developers. The report was submitted to Mepa, which was carrying out its assessment of the application.
So far, so common, as land deals go, whether one approves of them or not. It was only later, under political and media pressure, that more details came out.
Micallef had been introduced to the developers by Pullicino Orlando, meaning he knew about the development application. The application ended up running in parallel with an application by the Malta Tourism Authority to rehabilitate Mistra Bay. Such applications, it seems, are made purely from a tourism standpoint. It is up to Mepa alone to approve or disapprove them, as well as any development application given a tourism policy clearance certificate. Mepa does so taking into account its policies and environmental implications. It was also revealed that - at the request of Mepa - the MTA had submitted a report to back its rehabilitation application, and also giving tourism-standpoint views on the entertainment project application. The report was drawn up by Micallef, the same person who had prepared the report backing the entertainment development application, who had since then been appointed as a consultant to the MTA.
In January, a few weeks before the election, Pullicino Orlando, being the owner of the land, entered into a private agreement. Among other things it specified a large minimum sum to be spent by the developer on the property, and the substantial rent to be paid to the MP.
The size of the rent evidently took into account the hugely enhanced value of the land given that it was in line for a full development permit, since an outline permit had been issued.
It has also emerged that not only did Pullicino Orlando know about the entertainment application, but he had lobbied for its clearance by Mepa. Faced by such fuller details coming to light, the owner-MP continued to protest that he had done nothing wrong - as he put it, he had not exercised undue pressure.
Once again the sting lay in the tail. That was an implicit admission by the MP that he had, in fact, exercised pressure; but, in his judgment, it was not excessive.
A cynical observer would say that lobbying was not uncommon in Malta, whether one found it morally reprehensible or not. What singles out the Mistra affair at this stage is the fact that Pullicino Orlando was pushing his own canoe, rather than trying to help some constituent, as MPs are wont to do.
The story so far leaves him with egg on his face. He may not have broken any law, but did he act ethically as an MP in trying to mount support for the effective enhancement of the value of his land, starting with the first approach to Micallef and continuing with the apparent successful mobilisation of support by Mepa members? Though the question can only be answered by the MP himself, it does raise the need for ethical and technical considerations.
The role of MPs should be more clearly defined, not least in regard to self-seeking activities of a commercial nature. And one should really question whether it continues to make sense for the Malta Tourism Authority to issue reports to Mepa, when the authority itself has not finalised its deliberations on an application. The procedure, surely, should be inverted - first, Mepa should decide according to development policies in force, and only after that should it seek the MTA's opinion.
The upshot of the Mistra affair, I hazard to reiterate, will not result in any legal action against or conviction of Pullicino Orlando. It will lead to policy and operational revisions at Mepa. Meanwhile, the MTA will have lost the services of Micallef, an acknowledged tourism expert and part of its backbone in the past year of positive action. That's not good news for the new Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism.