Malta’s record on corruption and lawlessness is poor. As the most recent Corruption Perception Index by Transparency International reports, the island lies at the bottom end of the European league-table, with a pass mark of just over 50 per cent, which is nowhere near the top dozen north European states’ average score of 84 per cent.
A report on corruption in the EU by the European Commission broadly supported these findings. Over 60 per cent of respondents described corruption as being “part of Maltese culture”. The most depressing aspect of the perception survey, however, was the response that over 70 per cent failed to do anything about corruption in Malta because they thought “nothing would happen” or because “everybody knows about it”.
Malta – reflecting its culture of lawlessness – has invoked several amnesties over the years. There were amnesties for those who had secreted huge funds overseas to avoid paying taxes in Malta; for non-payment of VAT; for abuse of the electricity supply and the scam on smart meters. Amnesties are given to hardened criminals after almost every election.
It is against this background that the planning authority’s proposal that an amnesty should be granted by the government to “sanction” long-standing illegal developments should be viewed. To “sanction” in this case means to make legal what has hitherto been deemed illegal under planning law.
In outline, Mepa’s proposals are thought to seek agreement to erase about 10,000 enforcement cases on infringements which occurred prior to 2013, including those outside the development zone (ODZ) – that is, in the countryside – before the full establishment of the planning authority in 1994. Many of these infringements, especially the minor ones, have not been acted upon by Mepa and are now, it is claimed, no longer capable of being reasonably enforced.
It is thought the amnesty could lead to major ‘sanctioning’ of, say, properties built without a permit in the countryside or even where entire floors were constructed illegally. The Mepa CEO has acknowledged that, although the proposals are aimed at expunging infringements that could not be “sanctioned” under the current rules, they could also open the door to this kind of application.
Therefore, to highlight one of the most infamous offenders as an illustration – and there are many others like him – the illegal structures erected by construction magnate Charles Polidano at his headquarters in Ħal-Farruġ, covering an area of about 64,000 square metres, might be made legal under the proposed scheme. Polidano is no stranger to accusations of illegal development. Is he therefore to be permitted to buy his way out of these illegalities under the ‘amnesty’?
It is clear that both ‘sanctions’ and ‘amnesties’ are a failure of law enforcement. Regular pardons simply encourage further abuse. They are reflective of a culture whose respect for the rule of law is abysmal. Overridingly, they are a reflection of a lack of political will by politicians of both parties – a form of state-sponsored illegality.
The amnesty being proposed by the planning authority should be rejected. Instead, the government should show the moral courage to enforce the law by providing the resources needed to collect all outstanding fines and remove all the illegal structures that have been erected.
At the very most, any changes to Mepa’s ability to deal with variations under the planning law should be so narrowly defined as to ensure only minor technical infringements are covered.