Victor Scerri is prepared to go all the way to clear his name in the controversial Baħrija development case after resigning as Nationalist Party president.

You signed off your resignation letter from the post of Nationalist Party President "Au revoir" not "Adieu". Does this mean that your political career is not over yet?

I resigned from the post of president of the general council.

Will you remain active in the Nationalist Party?

Now we'll see. At this point my only objective is to clear my name and safeguard my family's interests.

Last Sunday, the Prime Minister said that whether you should resign or not was an issue you had to decide upon. Many interpreted those words as a sign that he wanted you to leave.

I did not interpret it that way. The Prime Minister had expressed trust in my integrity and said he was sure I would take the correct decision. I spoke to the party leader on Tuesday and my right decision was that I had to fight the battle to clear my name at all costs. I could have retained my post but I felt I could wage my battle better if I resigned.

Did Paul Borg Olivier, Lawrence Gonzi or anybody else from the party ask for, or push you to resign?

No. We met to discuss all options in which I could best defend my name. I informed them that the best way forward was for me to be free to defend my case without the fear that whatever I said or did implicated the party.

You resigned just 24 hours after saying you would not be shouldering responsibility for the mistakes of others. What made you change your mind?

Things have not changed and I will not be shouldering (responsibility for) the mistakes of others. I had been considering resigning for quite some time. On Monday night I was almost certain, but I slept on it. The difficult part is the time leading up to the moment the decision is taken. I was weighing the consequences and how it could be interpreted. On Tuesday evening I decided the best way to defend myself was to resign. I did not want to remain constrained by the post I occupied.

The Sunday Times had asked Lawrence Gonzi on June 21 about your development in an outside development zone. Dr Gonzi had said that if there was something irregular he would be the first "to ask for the withdrawal of the permit and the resignation of the person concerned". Wasn't Dr Gonzi asking for your resignation?

The Prime Minister could have been referring to me only if it transpired that I applied pressure for the permit to be approved. If I did something irregular I wouldn't have waited for the Prime Minister to say so - I would have just resigned.

Did the Prime Minister let you down when he did not defend you in public?

This was one of the dilemmas created by the fact that I occupied a political position. While there were numerous attacks in my regard, including allegations that were completely untrue, the party and its media were shackled from taking a position in my regard because I occupied the post of president in the party.

They did not know how to handle it. For seven whole weeks I never went on the PN media to give my version of events. Nor did I contact the independent media to be given the space. I allowed everybody to say what they pleased. Now, unshackled by my political position I feel it is time to give my side of the story.

Has the Prime Minister sent you messages of support?

I made it a point throughout the past few weeks not to contact or talk to the Prime Minister. We also had meetings of the administrative council and I made it a point not to sit next to him as I normally do. I did not want in any way to influence him or be perceived to influence him - more so when he is responsible for Mepa.

Did you expect the party to support you in any way?

This was a battle that I had to fight. The problem was that I had my hands tied because of my position.

The auditor's report says that Mepa's DCC boards broke planning policy when they approved your permits. Did you or your architect, Robert Musumeci, exert any pressure or influence on them to decide the way they did?

I can only speak on my and my wife's behalf. My architect can speak for himself and I am sure he will do so.

I categorically deny that I ever spoke to the DCC members, any Mepa officials, the minister responsible for Mepa or any ministry official about the permit.

Furthermore, the application was in my wife's name and not mine because I purposely did not want it to be linked to me so that anybody who came across it did not feel obliged or under any pressure because of my position in the party.

It could be interpreted the other way though, that you wanted to hide the matter...

Yes, and it was interpreted that way. However, while within Mepa, people might not have known the application was mine, people on the outside knew because I never hid the fact that the land was mine.

I also took people there for picnics, and about four months ago when the work started the Rabat mayor had come to the site and I had no problem telling him it was my land.

I just want the police investigation to be concluded because my wife and I never put any pressure on any one.

Did you or your wife ever meet with DCC board members?

No, never.

And Robert Musumeci?

Not as far as I know.

The auditor seems to suggest the contrary.

The report is vile in this respect because the auditor assumes what could have led the DCC members to approve an application, which according to him should have been refused without discussion.

The auditor says that from past experience he could not exclude that there could have been collusion between one or more board members and the applicant. This is unfair. An investigation cannot be conducted on what "could" have happened or on what "could not be excluded". An investigation is conducted on the facts.

I don't know what past experience the auditor was referring to, whether it was from the time he was chairman of the DCC that approved a number of ODZ applications. He had every right to do so but he cannot argue that what he did was correct but what others did was wrong, and more than that suggest that there may have been collusion.

When I read this report, should I say that I do not rule out that Joe Falzon had ulterior motives?

Is that what you believe?

No, I'm not saying that, but it could be a conclusion that I may make if I use the auditor's logic.

Your land is in a Grade 1 protected area at the bottom of a valley. It was always going to be very difficult to totally demolish the building, dig up the land and erect a new, larger structure. Were you given the right advice by your architect when you embarked on the project nine years ago?

I had approached him nine years ago with the idea to build a residence instead of the run-down farmhouse that, according to information I had gathered from farmers in the area, had been used as a residence years before...

Decades earlier, just after the Second World War...

Yes, I believe that just after the war it was still being used as a residence. I had asked (Mr Musumeci) about the possibility of turning the dilapidated property into a residence. Based on the way permits were issued by the DCC at the time, including the time Mr Falzon was chairman of the DCC, (Mr Musumeci) told me we could apply because the place had been used as a residence and there were other buildings not very far off. This is how the DCC worked at the time, and how I think it still works today. Mine was not a unique case.

An argument made by environmentalists is that the site stood in a very important ecological area. Digging up the site and introducing machinery was already disturbing the zone.

I do not have to agree with them. I cannot understand why the development had to damage the environment. There are environmentalists who would have us live in the trees but there are others who are more moderate. There was a dilapidated dangerous building on site that we removed. We excavated just enough to prepare the foundations for a building to be constructed on clay and the intention was to rebuild the same structure. I cannot understand what difference it would have made.

There were other issues raised by the Mepa chairman such as that the site plans presented did not take into consideration that the site was sloping and not flat, and the position of the cistern was not indicated...

The previous building was not sloping. The road leading to the site is sloping but the site where I applied to erect the building was not. The field is flat.

So is the Mepa chairman incorrect?

I do not think the chairman went on site. He stood by what he was told. As for the cistern, I never applied to build one. It was Mepa that insisted we build an underground cistern. What we did was excavate more land alongside the foundations to build it. If they don't want me to build it I have no problem complying.

Could this whole affair be the result of you or your architect adopting the typical Maltese attitude of 'anything goes'?

Not at all. If I had that attitude I would have started construction long ago. I did not touch one stone before I had all the permits in hand.

It angered me when people saw the excavated hole and said I was going to build a swimming pool. It is absolutely not true. We never applied for a swimming pool and never wanted one.

Throughout these years I consulted a number of agricultural experts to determine the best use for the land and it is unfair to pass judgment simply while the works are being done. The building was to be reconstructed with old stone and the landscaping was to include olive trees.

People can say that I have spoiled the environment with the construction but it remains a subjective opinion with which I do not necessarily agree.

The issue goes beyond personal opinions. It's all about official policies that have been consistently ignored all throughout.

This criticism should not be addressed towards me. It should be addressed towards Mepa, but I would like to know what decisions the authority has taken throughout the years in determining similar applications to mine.

It is for this reason that I had to resign my post in the party because the attack was not against the development but against me, against the president of the PN.

You had issued a statement saying that you had stopped the works pending the investigations. However, this is contradicted by the Mepa chairman who said it was the authority that stopped works on site on June 15 until your architect supplied new updated plans. Who is telling the truth?

The chairman said that the applicant was "asked" to stop the works. This is what happened. I was never issued with a stop or enforcement notice. My architect had a discussion with a Mepa official on a number of issues concerning the plans and he was advised to stop the works on site until the issues were resolved. (Mr Musumeci) contacted me and I told him I had no problem to stop the works. This was on June 15, the same day that I sent the letters to the Mepa chairman and the police commissioner asking them to investigate me. Despite the request from Mepa I could have continued with the works.

Do you feel that you are carrying the can for the failures of your architect, who has also been involved in other controversial ODZ applications?

(Mr Musumeci) is capable of defending himself. I trusted him with the job because I trust his capabilities as an architect.

Will you be suing Mepa or the government if the last permit to extend the farmhouse is withdrawn?

I have already appointed a number of lawyers since there are various avenues that can be explored. The process is now in their hands.

All that can be done must be done. I have instructed them clearly that I do not want half measures since I am determined to go with this till the very end. I'm going all the way to clear my name no matter how long it takes and how much it costs. I also want to defend my family's interests.

Unfortunately, other people in politics have had to sacrifice their interests and bow their head to safeguard their post even if they did nothing wrong. I could not bow to pressure that was directed towards me simply because I was president of the party and that is why I left.

You described the protests against your development as "mob rule". But aren't peaceful protests part of democracy?

I did not refer to the protests per se. The NGOs have every right to protest and I would say, also the obligation to do so if they want to be true to their beliefs. However, the protests should have been directed against the development.

In that protest there were placards attacking me personally, and to me that is mob rule, because the focus was not the development but the person who happened to be the president of the party in government. I do not accept this.

You do not just happen to be the president of the party in government. Any person in a political position in every democracy has to expect a higher level of scrutiny.

Yes, but if this is the case I expect an environmentalist to direct his or her protest against the development. Turning the issue into a personal one, or going one step further and asking the Prime Minister to intervene and withdraw the permit makes me wonder where the rule of law is.

In your case the rule of law was ignored. Mepa has started procedures to withdraw the last permit because it was illegally issued. If there wasn't public pressure the law would have been broken and nobody would have bothered.

I did not break the law, Mepa did. However, pressure could have still be applied without getting personal. As things developed I cannot rule out that there were ulterior motives behind the protests.

You are acting like the auditor in "not ruling out" ulterior motives.

I am convinced that some people present for that protest had ulterior motives.

Who are you referring to?

Look at some of the posters that were being carried and one can easily understand what I'm talking about. There was no need to reduce the whole affair to a personal issue.

Are you referring to Astrid Vella?

Look at the protest yourself... All that was required was a letter to the Mepa auditor to investigate my development.

Unfortunately, in the whole affair little space was allowed for objectivity and facts. Even the media ended up reporting things that were incorrect. I read in the newspapers that the property that already existed on site was a two-roomed farmhouse or that I was going to develop a villa. I would like to know who invented these things...

You remained silent all throughout, why did you not correct these wrong impressions?

My position shackled me. All that I would have said would have been interpreted as coming from the president of the PN. I wanted to defend myself as a private citizen and now I will not hold back from saying certain things or taking certain action.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.