PM regrets comments by Mepa audit officer
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.
29 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Muscat. Pat
Nov 9th 2009, 21:17
I think that Dr L. Gonzi is saying the right thing, and no one should criticise Mepa; but then Dr L. Gonzi would be better suited to be the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe and not European Malta; in Zimbabwe criticism is not tolerrated!
r cutajar
Nov 9th 2009, 18:36
@PamelaHansen Please give us more of same Well done Auditor. dear P M the Auditor addressed a policy as far as I gather no? correct everyone and hold a debate on TV if you suspect slander
Dr.Joan Ribi
Nov 9th 2009, 15:38
Since government accepted the obligations of EU membership on behalf of Malta, citizens have aquired freedom of expression.
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.
laurence schembri
Nov 9th 2009, 12:51
I find the Ombudsman consideration quite odd, was he and his government not the ones that rubbished the previous Ombudsmen`s recommendations.
P Pace Balzan
Nov 9th 2009, 12:24
A very good suggestion by Dr Gonzi.
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.
James Formosa
Nov 9th 2009, 09:48
Just look at the facade of the MEPA offices!!! Don't you think that an authority for Environment & Property should take care of its own property and clean that masonry work!! Disgusting. Or are those stains to remind us of the tainted history of the MEPA. Gonzi clean up your act.
victor caruana
Nov 9th 2009, 08:53
It sounds familiar. I was following comments made by Silvio Berlusconi on magistrates.........
MSciberras
Nov 8th 2009, 18:11
Once again the Prime Minister's comments betray his way of thinking, and his way of thinking is utterly unsuitable for a Maltese prime minister in 2009. Î do not particularly like J Muscat - his eagerness to milk the utility price hikes and his crass commitment to subsidies is particularly irksome - and have never voted Labour, but the PL leader will have to murder a dozen babies before Gonzi ever gets my vote. Mintoff got us into the EU. JPO got rid of Sant. Now I can actually actually cast a vote for Labour..........................
R.Zammit
Nov 8th 2009, 18:05
Oh dear. One step forward.................two steps back!
John Azzopardi
Nov 8th 2009, 18:00
Bravo to the Audit Officer. Independence of the Audit Office should always remain a priority and if he was right, the PM should have backed up his words.
Edward Camilleri
Nov 8th 2009, 17:56
I agree wholeheartedly with Pamela Hansen. Our court is infallible whilst the EU Human Rights court isn't!
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!
PM Camilleri
Nov 8th 2009, 17:31
The courts are always in the right? Of course not! Then he had every right to criticise that court decision. There was definitely something wrong.
Joe Scerri
Nov 8th 2009, 17:30
"he regretted comments which questioned a decision of the court."
So are court decisions infallible?
Why do people appeal court decisons then?
Or is this a case of two weights two measures (as usual)?
karm cassar
Nov 8th 2009, 17:13
The PM said that he has a duty to to respect the audit officer , but . . . . . . . . the development process in a way which is fair, transparentand according to the rules. Those who have eyes to see certainly do not agree with the last part..
Katie Bugeja
Nov 8th 2009, 16:59
“…because everything that was said had legal, moral and ethical implications.”
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.
John Caruana
Nov 8th 2009, 16:42
Dr Gonzi, it's indeed a pity that you chose to speak like a lawyer and not like a Prime Minister. Do you mean the MEPA ombudsman has no right to criticise a court decision?! No wonder you and your ilk ALWAYS seek the wide flowing skirt of Lady Justice to hide under! As Prime Minister your position should have been to ensure full transparency and eliminate any action that might be perceived as unethical or even corrupt. You did exactly the opposite.
Pamela Hansen
Nov 8th 2009, 16:20
Does the PM think that the Maltese courts are infallible now?
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?
carmel pace
Nov 8th 2009, 16:01
If everything is as hunky dory as some ,including Gonzi ,would have us believe, then i guess the permit will be validated and the disco will be built right??
It seems as if only the auditor and obviously A Sant did anything wrong in this whole tragic story. Beam me up Scotty.........
APScerri
Nov 8th 2009, 15:31
There is only one way Mr Audit Officer: the only way is OUT! By your superfluous comments, you have lost the respect of a lot of people, and now you have also lost the prime minister's backing!! Be a gentleman! Better resign NOW!!!
John Micallef
Nov 8th 2009, 14:51
How many other things you have to regre dear Lawrence!?
Edward Camilleri
Nov 8th 2009, 14:47
This is amazing. One covering up for the other! From when do public meetings can be turned into private ones? How can transparancy by ensured in private meetings?
The court isn't infallible.
F.Micallef
Nov 8th 2009, 14:46
gonzi is echoing musumeci's line of thought. The pl attempted to counter their arguments but failed miserably
Denise Vella
Nov 8th 2009, 14:20
Institutiions cannot be challenged and only lawyers can speak. What is this?
J. Schembri
Nov 8th 2009, 13:53
"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."
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.
J. Borg
Nov 8th 2009, 13:51
oh dear prime minister.......
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
Sergio Galea Vincenti
Nov 8th 2009, 13:49
Dr. Gonzi's statement opens up, so to speak, a whole big can of worms...
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.
MSciberras
Nov 8th 2009, 13:23
There is a fine point that is being made here by the PM that, if sustained, will curtail the independence of the audit officer in MEPA. The role of the audit officer should not be curtailed in any way or manner, including his right to question the correctness of a legal ruling or not have his every opinion vetted by a lawyer. We noted how quick certain architects were to give their reactions to this case and people who have followed this case closely have reason to be outraged that the core issues of lack of transparency in MEPA's workings was not tackled at all by the court. It is true that this was not the issue of the case in question and hence the court could not have been expected to rule on this. Yet comments by the judge that referred to this anomaly in MEPAs working were at least expected. What Gonzi and his sort have consistently shown is that they fail to comprehend the anger felt by people at a lack of transparency that, if not by itself indicative of corruption, is certainly indicative of the existence of a great deal of potential for corruption.
J Oatmon
Nov 8th 2009, 13:05
This 'expression of regret' conveniently disregards the reality that secret discussions have something to hide, and the auditer was correct in highlighting this situation which leads to corruption.
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.
Joseph Ellis
Nov 8th 2009, 13:03
Dr Gonzi should note that the meetings in question was not between developers and planning officers but between an M.P. and the Chairman and a member of the Development Control Commission which is the quasi-judicial body that decides planning applications. Thus, his argument does not hold at all and it seems to be aimed solely at delegitimizing the MEPA auditor.
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.