Justice needs to be seen being done at Mepa

In his contribution on what has become known as the Mistra case, John Ebejer (November 7) cited the October 28 court decision that "It is therefore apparent that these meetings could be legitimately held and there does not seem to be anything irregular, so much so that the authority established a complaints and liaison officer precisely for this purpose".

I suggest that legitimacy does not automatically make a thing legal. Perhaps "in accordance with accepted standards" is closer to its meaning. The court decided that what makes these meetings legitimate is that "the authority established a complaints and liaison officer precisely for this purpose". Hence, these meetings became accepted standard within Mepa - institutionalised, I would say - and therefore legitimate but not necessarily compliant with the spirit of the law.

Perhaps a more important consideration is whether Mepa should persist with this practice or not.

It seems that one of the duties of the Complaints and Liaison Officer is that of "improving communication between key stakeholders and decision-taking bodies in the planning process" and that such meetings are intended to achieve this end. All of which prompts a few intriguing questions.

1. Does this officer organise meetings with DCC chairmen whenever he receives a complaint or a request to this effect from an applicant? Presumably it makes no difference whether the request comes from a big businessman, a Member of Parliament or just plain old John Citizen. Right?

2. Why are such meetings held only with some DCC members and not with the entire Commission?

3. There is nothing in the Complaints Office page on the Mepa website to even hint that one function of this office is to organise meetings with DCC chairmen. Given that "the authority established a complaints and liaison officer precisely for this purpose", why is this raison d'être not advertised on Mepa's website? Could this be an exclusive service reserved to a select few?

4. The Mepa website describes how this office responds to applicants' complaints. Among the actions envisaged is this: "Our Complaints Office will prepare a report giving his/her views and make recommendations, if any, as to how your complaint may be settled." Was such a report prepared in the Mistra case?

There is one other aspect to consider, which I will illustrate with a simple example.

If a party instituted court proceedings against another party, one should feel ill at ease if one saw the judge holding meetings in camera with only the other party and his lawyer. One could still be confident that justice would be done when the court decides on the case, notwithstanding such strange behaviour by the judge, which may or may not be legitimate. Yet, I opine that justice would not be seen to be done at all. This would be especially so if the court decision happens to go in favour of the second party.

I fear that meetings in camera with DCC members have the same effect especially if the DCC decision finally goes in favour of the applicant, no matter how correct that decision may be. Such meetings tend to be seen, not unreasonably, as a source of inappropriate influence on the DCC members who attend them. They may not be such, but risk being such and certainly tend to be seen to be such. Therefore, this practice is best abandoned.

All this does not change my conviction that the two accused were totally innocent of all the charges brought against them, which is what makes me concur unreservedly with Mr Ebejer in considering this sad story an instance of gross injustice against the two former members of the DCC. Perhaps the apparent legitimacy of these meetings was just that little detail needed to restore a modicum of justice towards these two individuals by finding them innocent.

Be that as it may, it should have been Mepa itself sitting on the bench of the accused to answer for this umpteenth mess, not these two scapegoats.