Updated - Adds statement by the Secretariat for Planning - A parcel of land in Żebbuġ given to Mark Gaffarena as part of the controversial Valletta expropriation deal is strategically located behind another plot in Qormi he was also given, Times of Malta can reveal.

The government gave Mr Gaffarena two parcels of land adjacent to each other in Żebbuġ, measuring a total of 26,223 square metres.

These are located behind another piece of agricultural land Mr Gaffarena was squatting in at Qormi and on which he “illegally” built an entertainment venue with a pool.

The venue is marketed for group dinner parties as Cavett Place, despite an enforcement notice issued by the planning authority in 2012.

Read more in Times of Malta.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT

Meanwhile, in a statement issued this morning, the government said all elements related to the case were being scrutinised and investigated by the Internal Audit and Investigations' Department and the investigation would be published.

The government said it would ensure that all the truth would come out in the most transparent manner.

The Parliamentary Secretary responsible for Lands denied there was political interference in the matter.

PM HAS TO GIVE ANSWERS ON GAFFARENA MEGA SCANDAL - PN

The Nationalist Party insisted that the Prime Minister should declare who was the politician who signing off the scandalous deal.

Addressing a press conference in Qormi next to some 10 tumoli of public land given to Mr Gaffarena as part of the Old Mint Street, Valletta property deal, spokesman Ryan Callus insisted that Prime Minister Joseph Muscat should answer the people's questions on the scandal, which was growing day after day.

"A politician has to sign off the deal according to law. Joseph Muscat is the minister responsible for the Lands Department. If he did not sign the deal, he must tell us who did," Mr Callus insisted.

In a reaction to more revelations about the scandal unveiled by Times of Malta today, shadow minister Jason Azzopardi said these showed that the 10 tumoli acquired by Mr Gaffarena were adjacent to his illegal entertainment complex Cavett Place in Qormi.

He said it was becoming crystal clear that the government gave Mr Gaffarena the option to pick and choose.

Shadow minister Marthese Portelli said the government architect's calculated value of the property given to Mr Gaffarena was less than half its real market value.

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY SIGNED ADVICE FOR ACQUISITION

In a reaction, the Parliamentary Secretariat for Planning said that as had always happened, the advice of Government Properties Department on the acquisition of the property in Old Mint street was given to the Parliamentary Secretary (Michael Falzon) who, as was the practice, signed it after the necessary valuations were made by the department's architects. 

The architects were the same people who used to work for the previous administration. They had worked freely and without interference according to procedures set years ago, the secretariat said.

One of the architects was a senior lecturer and head of department at the University. 

In the document he had signed, Dr Falzon made it clear that the department should proceed only if everything was according to law, the secretariat said.  

PN: GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT TRY TO BLAME ITS ARCHITECTS

In a counter-reply, the PN said it appeared that the prime minister was putting pressure on Dr Falzon for him to be the politician to answer for this scandal, even though it was Dr Muscat who was the minister responsible for lands. 

It was pathetic, the PN said, that Dr Falzon was in turn trying to pin the scandal on the architects at the Lands Department.

Dr Falzon must know that it was not the architects who decided that the government should buy a quarter of a property that was not needed, or that the government should then proceeded to buy another quarter.

He must also know that it was not the architects who decided what lands to give Mr Gaffarena.

The PN questioned why Dr Falzon wrote that the Lands Department should proceed only if everything was in conformity with the law.  It Dr Falzon truly wrote this, did it mean that there were cases which had not been in conformity with the law?  

The PN said that if the government truly had nothing to hide it should, tonight, publish all the files related to this case.