The decision by the government, taken after Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi consulted with Archbishop Paul Cremona, to drop the planned extension of the museum at St John's Co-Cathedral, in Valletta, has proved to be as controversial as the proposed project itself.
The extension saga apparently dates back to 2006 when the St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation first came up with the plans, with applications being filed in the following year. Subsequently, the issue came to the fore and raised the ire of different quarters for different reasons, not all openly declared. Yet, it does not seem that the government, and/or the ruling Nationalist Party, had at any stage expressed doubts about the project, that is until, a few weeks ago, voices of dissent among the ranks, including former Cabinet ministers, started being heard.
Thus, the first question to ask is: Why did the government have to wait for so long to make the move it finally made on Wednesday? As it happened, the announcement was made just hours before Parliament was scheduled to debate an opposition motion calling on the government to withdraw support for the proposed underground extension.
Dr Gonzi said the decision was made because the matter was dividing the people. Did he realise this only after encountering Mgr Cremona on the feast of St Paul's Shipwreck the day before? Hardly!
Why did the government stop the plans at this point in time even if, as those for the proposed now-defunct project rightly argue, the due evaluation process had not been concluded?
Dr Gonzi must have had his reasons, some of which, if not most, he is hardly able to divulge publicly. Of course, it took political courage on his part to make the decision, whether you consider it to be a U-turn or a logical conclusion. Yet, the saga does put the government in a bad picture, if anything for appearing to have failed to do its homework right.
What happens now?
The worst that could happen is that the foundation or elements within react by remaining passive. If there are artefacts that risk being damaged or that should be put on public display, then no stone should be left unturned for the matter to be addressed. Options there probably are and, thankfully, funds seem to be available too. The proposed project would have cost €16 million, including €14 million coming from the European Union and the rest from the foundation itself. Those funds cannot be allowed to go astray, which does not seem to be the case. The proposers and the objectors of the abandoned project should work together to ensure the money serves the purpose it was originally meant to: the promotion and enjoyment of the country's treasures.
With the extension controversy out of the way, the attention is now likely to shift back to the City Gate project. The bone of contention in this case is the proposal to move Parliament to the site where the majestic Royal Opera House used to stand. With Dr Gonzi, who made the proposal, now suggesting nothing is writ in stone yet, the victorious objectors to the museum extension project are likely to step up the noise.
Yet, the whole project cannot be allowed to be stalled because of the loud voice of dissent. If anything, such a decision must be made on purely technical reasons in the widest sense of the world. That is why, this time, the evaluation process should be allowed to take its course.