Most of the Land Department’s internal lawyers are reluctant to take on the politically sensitive Gaffarena case, sources have told this newspaper.
Neither the Commissioner of Lands nor the Land Registrar could say yesterday which of their lawyers would be representing them in the case instituted against them by the Prime Minister over the expropriation of property in Valletta, which led to the resignation of Michael Falzon from parliamentary secretary.
The Commissioner is the most senior official in the department, which falls within the Office of the Prime Minister, while the Registrar is part of the Justice Minister’s portfolio.
This newspaper is informed the two entities have 20 days to submit their replies to the court application filed by Joseph Muscat and the Attorney General last week.
“Under normal circumstances, the Attorney General’s office will be appearing on behalf of both departments,” a senior government official said.
“Since in this case, the Attorney General is the one instituting this case against us together with Dr Muscat, we obviously cannot use the AG’s services.”
The Times of Malta has learnt there is no decision yet on the internal lawyers to be assigned to the case by the department but that most of them have informally expressed reservations about taking part.
The department’s external legal consultant, Stefano Filletti, said he would not be representing the department in the case.
“It will not be me. Most probably it will be the internal lawyers of the department but I don’t know who,” he said when contacted.
When asked, the commissioner, Peter Mamo, said “the lawyer is still to be determined”.
Neither the Land Registrar nor the OPM replied to questions.
Last week, following the publication of a National Audit Office report into the Gaffarena property deal – which led to the resignation of Dr Falzon – the Prime Minster, in his capacity as an MP, and the Attorney General filed a court case to recoup €3.4 million paid to the Gaffarena family for the Old Mint Street property.
Dr Muscat and the AG are seeking to have the deal with Mark Gaffarena nullified on the ground that the Land Department made a mistake.
They claim that it committed a technical error when it gave compensation only to the Gaffarenas for the expropriation of part of the property, when it should have been divided between all the owners.
Mr Gaffarena only owned half of the property and the half that was expropriated was not defined.
Legal sources have described the case instituted by the Prime Minster as very ambiguous and delving into uncharted legal waters.
The National Audit Office in its report referred to the legal avenues the government could take to nullify the deal with Mr Gaffarena.
“It is a moot point whether the government could successfully sue for the recession of the deeds,” the NAO said.
“Even if the deed is not nullified, the other co-owners could possibly bring a claim against the government for the payment of their respective share of compensations established as due for this expropriation in terms of the deed.”