The Nationalist Party insisted today that since the Commission Against Corruption had endorsed the Ombudsman report about how Mepa permits were granted for a property owned by Parliamentary Secretary Ian Borg, Dr Borg's position was no longer tenable.

Meanwhile both Mepa and the Ombudsman issued technical explanations in which they stood by the decisions that had taken over the case. (See pdfs below).

Beppe Fenech Adami, shadow minister for home affairs, noted how the ombudsman had found it strange and devious that Dr Borg applied for the development permit under another person's name; how polices had been changed in a way which enabled this permit to be issued and how a permit application two years previously on the same site but by different owners was rejected.   

The Commission Against Corruption, which took over the case from the Ombudsman, said there was insufficient level to the degree required by criminal law to prove corruption.

However, Dr Fenech Adami said, this was not just a criminal case, but a political one.

Dr Borg was part of the government and he had, according to the Ombudsman, applied in a devious way to get his permit issued.

The prime minister and Dr Borg needed to account for what  the Ombudsman had said.

However, Dr Fenech Adami said, like several NGOs, he felt that Dr Borg's position as a politician was no longer tenable. 

PL: NO IRREGULARITY FOUND

The Labour party said it was clear from the report that no irregularity had taken place.

The commission was a respected institution and it was disgraceful that the PN was now trying to contradict what the commission had said.  

See Mepa's explanation of its decision, based on technical reasons, in pdf presentation below.