The Mistra saga verdict

Two elderly citizens, the chairman of Mepa's former Dev-elopment Control Commission and a member of the same board, were arraigned way back in November 2007 accused with a crime contemplated in article 124 of the Criminal Code, under the heading of malversation by public officers and servants, due to alleged private interest in adjudicating the Mistra ermit.

It transpires that, with this article at law, the legislator wanted to punish those public officers who abuse of their position for their own private gain. This disposition has been transported into our law and finds its origin in the Napoleon Code in the 1800s.

Naturally, such a case prompted a big public outcry and certainly caused a lot of insecurity to the present DCC members due to the fact that it was claimed from the very outset of the proceedings that such officers of high integrity always performed their duties to the best of their abilities and according to law and, more so, according to the customs and procedures adopted by Mepa.

Notwithstanding all this, the executive police still thought that these two officers should be brought to court only to be acquitted of such a charge two years later. Needless to say, such officers had to go through such a futile saga to the detriment of their health and, perhaps, to the zeal of third parties.

From a close look at the learned judgment given yesterday in their regard by the Magistrates' Court, it transpires that such officers only acted in due diligence, accordance to law and to established principles. It resulted clearly that they had no fraudulent intention and, more so, had no private interests with any illegal bearing in what they did.

The court even pointed out that the Development Planning Act already provides the procedures that should be adopted in those cases where a planning decision is given and perhaps may not be according to the desired result.

Certainly, and this should be of common knowledge to all and sundry, the Magistrates' Courts never had any power to investigate any planning decisions or any other administrative discretion. Its powers are limited in the criminal sphere to judge those cases where a penal disposition has been transgressed. In this case, the Mepa audit officer felt aggrieved with the Mistra decision and, after investigating same, recommended that such decision be revoked under section 39A of the same Act on the basis of "error on the face of the record which offends the law".

Having a negative recommendation for a development in ODZ overturned by a DCC board should come as no surprise, considering that under the tenure of the same Mepa audit officer when he occupied the post of DCC chairman up to 1998, a total of 1,495 ODZ applications were decided favourably despite the directorate insisting that the bulk of such permits should never have been issued!

The learned magistrate also underlined the fact that the role of the liaison officer, Lawrence Vassallo, who was also dragged in this whole saga for holding meetings to facilitate the planning process on this application, includes the holding of meetings on applications having contentious issues.

The bottom line of this whole story is that two innocent people were made to stand trial for having done their job scrupulously! Who shall be held "morally" responsible for causing this ordeal?

An architect by profession, Mr Musumeci is the Nationalist mayor of Siġġiewi.