Sunday, 8th November 2009 - 12:01CET
PM regrets comments by Mepa audit officer
The Mepa offices in Floriana.
The Prime Minister this morning expressed regret at comments made by the Mepa audit officer last week.
Speaking in a radio interview, Dr Gonzi said that a milestone was reached when the Magistrates' Court recently declared that there was nothing wrong in meetings between developers and Mepa planning officers.
The Audit officer in comments to The Times on Monday said such meetings were illegal according to law.
Dr Gonzi said the role of the audit officer was important, but he regretted comments which questioned a decision of the court. One should respect the institutions.
"I have a duty to respect the audit officer, but we cannot have such statements which could hinder Mepa as it seeks to facilitate the development process in a way which is fair, transparent and according to the rules," Dr Gonzi said.
One could not have a situation where, because no explanation was given as to how a decision was taken, it was claimed that there was corruption. One should seek an explanation, not immediately claim irregularity or corruption.
Dr Gonzi said the government and a House Select Committee were considering a proposal made by the Ombudsman for officers who have a role such as the audit-officer to fall within the aegis of the Ombudsman.
One benefit of such a set-up, Dr Gonzi said, was that persons who were not lawyers could be given advice before they put pen to paper, because everything that was said had legal, moral and ethical implications.
RSS
Comments
When one engages a certified auditor, it is intuitive that that auditor has the freedom to audit by virtue of certification. One does not engage an auditor and then prescride that that auditor should say. A certified auditor has the authority to write what he regards as necessary to write in an audit.
Citizens have the right to express an opinion on any court issues. The times of the Inquisition are long gone.
I believe that Maltese legislators who presumably are experts at law and legal matters should first become Theologians so that at least the God aspect of reason, morality and ethics will be observed during the legislative process.
Members of Parliament should take a similar approach before voting in favour of certain legislation.
I hope that with this approach Legalised Crime will be short lived in Malta.
Just this week the court overturned a 25 years jail sentence. This isn't a joke, in one court sitting one is given 25 years, and in the appeal nothing! And now the Prime Minister backs up the local courts without giving any chance for appeal!
So are court decisions infallible?
Why do people appeal court decisons then?
Or is this a case of two weights two measures (as usual)?
I don’t know why but whenever I hear the word ethics I remember of Tonio Fenech traveling on a private jet and of Dr. Gonzi’s approval.
Or is it just when the judgments suit the government?
We are regressing fast.
The PM, along with most, had no problem criticising the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg. Should we not respect that institution?
It seems as if only the auditor and obviously A Sant did anything wrong in this whole tragic story. Beam me up Scotty.........
The court isn't infallible.
68% of The Times readers don't agree with this statement Mr PM.
The accused persons are being used like innocent human shields. If doubts are cast on the Magistrates' Court sentence these respectable gentlemen's liberty would be at stake.
Now we know on who's side is Dr Gonzi.
so sack the mepa audit officer - just like you did to carmel caccopardo - because although being a pn militant during the dark ages when you were cosy hidden somewhere - yet cacopardo is no yes man and sticks to his principles.
but such individuals are hard to come by......and a pain in the backside for the pn
The MEPA Audit Officer did not mention planning officers but was clear in stating that it is members of the Development Control Commission who cannot meet developers outside the regular public meetings of the DCC for which the public and, especially, objectors have a right to attend and - in the case of registered objectors - intervene.
Indeed, at pre-submission stage, it is normal for applicant's architects to liaise with MEPA Planning Directorate personnel to pave the way so that submissions are conforming to MEPA's policies and thus reduce the risk of delays at DCC level.
The Development Planning Act is very clear on the matter and the recent judgement passed by the Courts can be interpreted as wrong on this matter. Are we then to assume that the AG shall not be requested to appeal the judgement at least on the merits of the clarification of this legal point?
One should also mention that the Court made it very clear that it was not passing any opinion on the merits of whether or not any permits were regularly issued or otherwise.
The Maltese courts have little or no credibility with the general public after a stream of gaffs and errors and inconsistent sentencing (these are people not gods).
Why should the public blindly believe in a broken legal system, just because a politician says we should?
To me, it seems that the Malta politicians are part of the problem, and not part of the solution, if they cannot see the problems, or deny the mistakes.
One is perfectly free to dissent from court decisions as they are not perfect all the time and can be revoked by the Appeal Court or in subsequent judgments as we do not have the doctrine of precedent as in the U.K. If Dr Gonzi were consistent with his statement of today, he should have refrained from criticizing the ECHR judgment on crosses in Italian schools.
It is true that meetings between developers and members of the Directorate are done all the time and so it should be. The law also allows for mediation when there is a stalemate in an application. However, the law does not contemplate any meetings between applicants and DCC members and proceedings have to be held in public as the auditor correctly pointed out.