Juan Ameen
Church commission, Ombudsman in defence of Mepa's audit officer
The Curia's Environment Commission and the Ombudsman are defending the planning authority's audit officer Joseph Falzon who is under fire for comments he made on two development cases.
The commission said the recent public criticism of Mr Falzon's work was "inappropriate" and promoted a culture of omertà (code of silence) that kept back the truth.
The Ombudsman said he understood the unfortunate situation Mr Falzon faced because it was still unregulated: "These officers should, in the exercise of their functions, enjoy the same institutional protection and have the same powers and duties the Ombudsman has."
Last week, Mr Falzon's actions came under fire from two fronts: by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, who accused him of jumping to conclusions in comments he made about a court judgment on the controversial Mistra case, and by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority in connection with what Mr Falzon said regarding a permit for apartments in Qala. In an article that appeared on The Times last week, Mr Falzon said he was considering resigning because he could not continue working in such a "hostile environment".
Without mentioning any names, the Church commission said it was a grave mistake and very immature to criticise the auditor's office "simply because we don't like what he says... even when we might think we are right on a legal point".
The commission praised the auditor's work over the years saying he acted with great integrity and courage, serving as Mepa's conscience.
It condemned any "irresponsible" attempts to gain political advantage from the situation. It did not elaborate. The commission reminded Mr Falzon that he should expect criticism - good or not - because of the wide-ranging implications behind Mepa's decisions.
Mepa lashed out at its auditor over a report probing a development permit in Qala, saying he should never even have investigated or published the report because the matter was still before the appeals' board. It said Mr Falzon's actions contradicted the Ombudsman decision, a higher institution.
However, Ombudsman Joseph Said Pullicino said Mepa's statement was not correct. Since Mr Falzon was a Mepa employee, he did not have "any institutional relationship with the Ombudsman who, therefore, is not empowered to directly influence, verify or control his actions or decisions".
Plus, Mepa's statement that the Ombudsman office was "a higher institution" was not precise because it was autonomous. It was also incorrect to say that in the past the Ombudsman had warned Mr Falzon not to investigate planning cases that were sub judice.
In 2006, on Mepa's request, the Ombudsman had told Mr Falzon that publishing a report on the recycling plant in Marsascala would prejudice the pending appeal. Mr Falzon had complied.
Yesterday, Dr Said Pullicino said he had advised Mr Falzon to suspend the investigation that was "correctly adopted". That advice was valid in 2006 and remained valid today, he said.
The Ombudsman said he also understood Mr Falzon's concern that construction could still go ahead even when the case was still sub judice and before the appeals' board. "This anomaly could seriously and irremediably prejudice the rights of interested parties as well as of society in general and should be addressed in the (Mepa) reform."
In reply, Mepa said it respected the commission's opinion and reiterated that Mr Falzon chose to ignore or omit a number of issues in his final report on the Qala development, even though the authority gave a detailed explanation and planning reasons behind the permit.
Mepa said it noted that Dr Said Pullicino repeated his advice to suspend investigations and publications of Mr Falzon's findings when planning cases were sub judice.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
9 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Antoine Vella
Nov 18th 2009, 21:12
j.ebejer
"On the basis of this, I do not think that one can say that the Ombudsman wrote in defence of the auditor. "
The Times is misleading its readers then.
Galea. L
Nov 18th 2009, 15:31
Those who are writing against Mr Falzon are only doing so to protect their own interests or those of friends of friends. Don't resign Mr Falzon. You have the vast majority of the peoples support against the establishment that is trying to kick you out.
j ebejer Do you think that if anyone had tried to corrupt someone will supply you with a VAT receipt?
D. Calleja The vast majority of the people do not want him to resign because they have absolutely NO faith in MEPA with its track record of environment destruction.
j ebejer
Nov 18th 2009, 14:47
May I ask the Church Commission whether it is morally correct for a person to make allegations against another person without sustaining those allegations?
In the Bahrija case, the auditor said that there may have been collusion. With one stroke of the pen, he has tarnished the reputation of the DCC board members, the applicant and the architect without having a shred of evidence to support the allegation.
Doesn’t the reputation and good name of these people deserve to be protected from being dragged in the mud?
D. Calleja
Nov 18th 2009, 14:29
Over the past few days we have experienced mass hysteria over the threat posed by Mr. Falzon's outburst!!
All those pleas in the Blogs begging him to stay on must surely place him in a formidable position for the candidature of a divine post!! How about Saint Joseph of Auditum! Has a nice sound to it doesn't it?!
He is reportedly mulling over resigning because he felt so hurt at being criticized and then states "Whenever I criticise something, everyone goes on the defensive." (sic!) Hilarious!!!!
How dare mere mortals criticise him - HE IS NOT PRONE TO ERRORS!!
And to rally the unfailing support of his legions he came out in public with his tribulations – It would have been great if he had staged it in the Garden of Gethsemane!!! We, lesser beings, would surely not survive such internal turmoil.
Having said that I would like to offer a word of comfort to all those contemplating suicides; ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN CAN SURELY SEE PAST HIS SMOKESCREEN!!! HE WON’T RESIGN! So please don't lose any more sleep over his latest tantrum!!!
laurence schembri
Nov 18th 2009, 13:37
Stick it out please Mr. Falzon.
j ebejer
Nov 18th 2009, 12:58
The Times report left out the following from the Ombudsman’ statement.
"That advice was motivated not only because the publication of his report could potentially prejudice the outcome before the Appeals Board but also by the basic principle that every administrative body has the duty to respect judicial authorities and quasi judicial authorities, to avoid exerting undue influence to ensure that the final binding decision is taken serenely, fairly, free from external pressures and strictly according to laws and regulations,"
This is the crux of the whole statement. On the basis of this, I do not think that one can say that the Ombudsman wrote in defence of the auditor.
Peter Murray
Nov 18th 2009, 10:53
Mr.Falzon has my unmitigated and unadulterated support however,I would question the statement of the Ombudsman whereby he declared "that the Mepa officers should enjoy the same powers as the Ombudsman".I put it to him that he possesses,with respect, as much power as the Delimara power plant this morning for he and his office have absolutely no enforcement capabilities whatsoever.His powers and those of the Mepa officers must be extended and reinforced to demonstrate effective and robust enforcement measures and powers.
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 18th 2009, 10:43
The MEPA auditor is not intervening in cases that are sub judice the law courts. He is intervening when an application that is causing public outrage is already way up the ladder of consideration and interim approval inside a MEPA whose technical decisions are not subject to scrutiny by the normal courts of law.
Andrew Gatt
Nov 18th 2009, 10:13
Can the Church Environment Commission and the MEPA auditor kindly update us about the extension to the Nadur Cemetery in Gozo?
A sensitive area. With freshwater springs. Having high ecologic value. Quality agricultural land. Amid a chorus of opposition. Permit issued.
Where was the Commission then, eh? Omerta? Damn right.