Mulling over a resignation

Much criticism had been levelled at a prominent member of Parliament when he stood to his guns and didn't resign in the face of a public outcry in his regard, including by former party officials. His decision was only vindicated recently when it transpired that the Court of Magistrates found that there had been no irregularities in the run-up to the issue of the Mistra permit, in which this MP was allegedly implicated.

The Court of Magistrates found no irregularities despite strong accusations by Mepa's audit officer. The other day, the same auditor chose to put in a bad light another decision by the Development Control Commission, this time relating to a development in Qala. This notwithstanding the fact that the DCC board, which is presided by a very capable architect, went into great detail to ensure that the decision would be in line with the provisions of the Local Plan. The auditor chose to go public, notwithstanding the fact that the case is still sub judice before the Planning Appeals Board (because a third party appeal has been filed) and, consequently, still subject to a final decision.

Such behaviour is not acceptable from an institutionalised body, especially in the light of a ruling by the Ombudsman last year, whereby the parameters of the auditor's office were outlined.

In face, the Ombudsman reiterated this week 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.

Weight should always be given to the Court of Magistrates and the Office of the Ombudsman who, after all, find comfort in the supreme law of the land - the Constitution. It was therefore with great surprise to learn that the Mepa audit officer is now "mulling resignation" because he feels under attack from several institutions, not least the Prime Minister.

Generally speaking, resignation denotes a negative situation for it indicates that a person is abandoning his line of duty prematurely. Surely, such situations do not augur well and certainly indicate that something along the line went wrong.

Living in a democratic society means that one has to learn to embrace decisions made by higher institutions and follow the precedent set by the same higher institutions despite harbouring an adverse opinion. Perhaps one should make reference to what was reported from a judgment handed down the other day by the Criminal Court of Appeal in connection with the appeal filed by the Attorney General in the VAT scam: "the courts do not have to reflect public opinion - the main duty of the court is to lead public opinion."

In the same way, planning decisions do not have to reflect public opinion. Bodies making planning decisions must take into consideration all technical and legal parameters that find comfort in planning policies and, not least, established case law delivered by higher institutions, namely the Planning Appeals Board and the Court of Appeal.

Being a member of a planning decision body is always a delicate post for there is always a loser and a winner whenever a decision is made. This is why it is of the utmost importance that such positions are given to people with a strong personality who ride roughshod over gossip and stick to their guns in their delivery irrespective of public outcry.

Should the Mepa audit officer trust that his decisions are in line with the law, he has no reason why to even ponder about resignation. However, it is imperative that a Mepa audit officer is legally bound to embrace directions given by the higher establishment that exists today, be it the Ombudsman, the Magistrates' Court or the Civil Court of Appeal.

To err is human but to persist in error is devilish!

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