A month after the corruption watchdog published its findings on a controversial development permit granted to Parliamentary Secretary Ian Borg, the young lawyer dismissed calls to resign saying that the case was “dead and buried”.

The Permanent Commission Against Corruption found no evidence of corruption in terms of criminal law in connection with an application for two dwellings in Santa Katarina, limits of Rabat.

However, the commission en-dorsed the conclusions of a probe by the Ombudsman, who had chastised the junior minister for choosing “a somewhat devious method” to file the application.

This prompted calls by the Opposition for Dr Borg to resign.

The commission had accepted the Ombudsman’s report because it had no power to review it and so it did not enter into the merits

The Ombudsman also called on the Malta Environment and Planning Authority to review the issued permit and reassess the application. The Ombudsman had concluded that Mepa had “removed the one possible reason (and a very strong one) for refusing the proposal (of a similar permit), thereby facilitating the process”.

Dr Borg’s case came to the fore again earlier this week when planning parliamentary secretary Michael Falzon resigned in the wake of an investigation by the Auditor General into a controversial expropriation deal involving Mark Gaffarena.

Critics felt that this was a case of two weights, two measures, in the sense that, unlike Dr Falzon, Dr Borg appeared to have emerged from his troubles unscathed.

Asked about the matter yesterday during the unveiling of an EU-funded project at the National Pool in Tal-Qroqq, Dr Borg reiterated the comments he made last month soon after the corruption commission released its findings.:

“The 42-page report concluded that nobody, including myself, had gained anything which was undeserved or taken advantage of their position to make any gains.”

Asked whether he had been treated differently from Dr Falzon, who paid the ultimate price, he said that the commission had accepted the Ombudsman’s re-port because it had no power to review it and so it did not enter into the merits.

When it was pointed out that the commission had actually endorsed the Ombudsman’s report, Dr Borg insisted the latter had probed Mepa’s technical investigation into his application but not his conduct.

“It has been a month now, and the issue is dead and buried,” Dr Borg said, concluding his comments.