The chairman of the House Public Accounts Committee, Tonio Fenech, is to ask Speaker Anġlu Farrugia to rule on how far the Attorney General can be expected to go in answering the committee’s questions on the dropping of the Australia Hall case.
Mr Fenech adjourned the meeting with AG Peter Grech sitting on the witness chair after he declined to answer questions by Jason Azzopardi (PN) on the grounds of professional secrecy.
In 1979, Labour had swapped its former headquarters in Marsa with Australia Hall and another property, both in Pembroke, so that the Marsa land could be used by Malta Shipbuilding.
In 2010, under a Nationalist government, the Land Department started procedures against Labour to reclaim the property, claiming breach of the 1979 contract.
Last October, the new Labour government dropped the case against the party in exchange for withdrawal of a counter claim that it had filed, demanding return of the land.
The PAC is looking into that decision and yesterday’s development came following the presentation of a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) called A Review of Documentation Regarding the Government’s Decision to Withdraw the Australia Hall Case.
It found that the documentation retained by the Government Property Division and the law courts did not provide a clear indication of who had taken the decision to withdraw the Australia Hall case, as originally instituted by the Commissioner of Land, and when such a decision had been taken.
In the NAO’s view the onus of retaining such documentation, with a view to ensuring transparency, accountability and good governance, rested with the division.
An e-mail sent by division director general Iman Schembri to GPD junior legal officer Michaela Muscat was “ambiguous” in that it referred to “the direction received” without referring to who had provided such direction.
The advice to the division in a memorandum submitted by the Attorney General’s Office did not prescribe a particular course of action but discussed the merits of the case and the consequences of an out-of-court settlement. The request for advice made to the AG’s Office, which would have been useful to establish the memorandum’s purpose, had not been included in the documentation provided to the NAO.
However, within the context, the NAO presumed that such a request had arisen following the receipt of a letter from Sciberras and Lia Advocates.
Before Mr Fenech adjourned the PAC meeting, Edward Zammit Lewis (PL) and Dr Azzopardi differed about the sort of questions that could be put to Dr Grech.
Dr Zammit Lewis maintained that questions should be for illumination without impinging on the AG’s professional secrecy. Anything else would constitute a bad precedent.
Claudio Grech (PN) said the aim was to throw light on decisions taken. Dr Zammit Lewis agreed. Dr Grech said the analysis of the situation was very clear in the memorandum, with various aspects of the legal issues involved. The AG’s advice had attempted to strike a balance between lines of action and the risks therein, according to the priorities pertaining to both the Australia Hall site and the site of the former Freedom Press.
A long-drawn-out lawsuit could damage any project the government might have had for the Marsa site. All suits involved legalistic and administrative risks.
At one point Dr Azzopardi pointed out that between 2008 and 2013 he had been in charge of the department under scrutiny, and as the then-client he could free the AG of professional secrecy. Dr Zammit Lewis disagreed.