The Gaffarena property expropriation case was back before Parliament today, with the former director of the Government Estate Management Division, Carmel Camilleri, telling the House Business Committee that he had been placed under pressure to get the process completed quickly. 

The case centres on the way how the government expropriated Marco Gaffarena's share of a property in Old Mint Street, Valletta, and the way he was compensated. The Auditor General had found irregularities and the prime minister had launched court proceedings to annul the deal. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160120/local/audit-report-on-gaffarena-expropriation-parliamentary-secretary-failed.599500

Today’s meeting was held after Mr Camilleri issued a sworn statement in which he said that he acted under pressure from a member of Dr Falzon’s secretariat, Clint Scerri, the link man between the division and Dr Falzon's secretariat. 

Former Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon will give evidence in another sitting.

Mr Camilleri told the committee that when he read the report by the Auditor General he was shocked.

“Matters were wrongly attributed to me and I was shocked. I had two choices, either to be silent and give the impression that the report’s contents were true, or to come out in the open and correct the report,” Mr Camilleri said.

He insisted he was never in collusion with anyone and never organised meetings with Mr Gaffarena, nor did he give him infromation. He said Mr Scerri used to instruct him not to tell anyone about how Mr Gaffarena came to his office with him, and similar matters.

He was initially scared and had been silent while the inquiry by the Auditor General was made.

Mr Camilleri said Mr Scerri was the link between the estates division and the ministry and he therefore assumed that what Mr Scerri told him came from the ministry. He said Mr Scerri spoke to him about various cases, but there was more intensity with regard to the Gaffarena case. Mr Scerri also used to speak to other officials including architects.

This procedure, he said, was not correct.

He recalled how Mr Scerri had gone to his office with Mr Gaffarena and handed him a file. That included a letter where Mr Gaffarena was calling on the government to expropriate his share of the property in Old Mint Street.

The other co-owners wanted the government to return their property. 

OTHER PART-OWNERS WANTED PROPERTY TO BE RETURNED TO THEM

Mr Camilleri said he at first thought that part-ownership of the property by the government would have made it more difficult for the other co-owners to kick out the government departments who were making use of it.

However it was unusual for one of the co-owners to actually seek expropriation. He had told Mr Scerri that expropriation had to endorsed by a member of the Cabinet and funds had to be sourced for it.

Mr Scerri had replied that 'Michael' would sign off the expropriation and funds would not be a problem.  

Replying to questions by Justice Minister Owen Bonnci, Mr Camilleri said it was not unusual for people involved in expropriation to be assisted by civil servants, but it was unusual for Mr Scerri to have turned up with Mr Gaffarena to actually request the start of proceedings.  

Mr Camilleri said the impression he got was that it was Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon who was starting this process. 

'IT WOULD BE WISE TO CONSIDER THE TRANSACTION'

Interjecting, Dr Bonnici observed, however, that in a minute he had sent to the director-general of the Estates Management Division, Mr Camilleri had said "it would be wise to consider this transaction" because government properties in the city were lacking. He therefore told the director-general that it he agreed, the matter should be referred to the parliamentary secretary.

In reply to questions by committee chairman Tonio Fenech, Mr Camilleri said this expropriation case was handled with haste. Architects were pressed to produce their valuations. At one time an architect did not have transport and was driven to the site by Mr Gaffarena.  He had also learned that Mr Scerri had been pressing draughtsmen and architects to quickly produce their valuations.

The valuations were handled by architect Joseph Henry Spiteri, who had worked part-time for the division for several years and lectured at the university.  As far as he knew, Mr Spiteri went on site before making valuations. The division relied on him.This was an architect who taught other architects how to make valuations and therefore he did not question him. 

VALUATIONS WERE NOT QUESTIONED BY ANYONE

Mr Camilleri said Mr Scerri turned up at his office with the valuations.

He was pressed for time and just glanced over them and handed them on.

However, he said in reply to questions by Dr Bonnici, no one told him not to examine the valuations, had he wanted to.

He had no information that anyone dictated the valuations to the architect. He knew of no case where a review of Mr Spiteri's valuations was requested and he himself had not questioned the valuations in this case. 

Mr Camilleri said Mr Spiteri was asked to handle these valuations because he was quick in his work and Mr Scerri wanted a fast process.  

Mr Camilleri said he never handed the valuations to Mr Gaffarena since that was considered classified information, yet Mr Gaffarena still got to know them.

Mr Scerri knew the valuations, however.

Mr Camilleri said Mr Gaffarna had come up with the list of government-owned rented properties which he had said should be transferred to him as compensation for the part-expropriation of the Valletta property. This form of transfers was not unusual. 

However it was Mr Scerri who finally decided which properties should be handed over to Mr Gaffarena. He felt uncomfortable with the pressure placed on him to get the process completed quickly.

An official from the National Audit Office, Keith Mercieca, said that what was wrong in this case was that Mr Gaffarena had known of the valuations made by the division for each property and could choose accordingly.  That amounted to inappropriate 'collusive action'.

At this stage a brief discussion took place on whether the valuation of the compensation was based on Mr Gaffarena having part or full ownership of the Valletta property. However it was agreed that this would be up to the courts to decide in view of the case instituted by the prime minister.

Mr Camilleri said valuation of property to be expropriated was made by architects independently of how much the owner or owners would have paid for it. 

MISTAKE MADE IN CALCULATING COMPENSATION FOR THE EXPROPRIATED PART-OWNERSHIP

Mr Camilleri insisted that in his minute to the director-general he did not recommend the expropriation, but had asked for the way forward after stating the position reached.

Dr Bonnici said the position as explained to Dr Falzon and on which he had based his decision, was illegal, according to the Attorney General. A mistake had been made because one fourth ownership of the property was calculated at 100 per cent value (for compensation). That was why a court case had been instituted.

Mr Fenech said mistakes may have been made because of the way the process was rushed. 

The representative of the audit-office, Mr Mercieca, said Mr Camilleri in his minute had spoken of one-quarter ownership.

Dr Bonnici and Mr Fenech agreed this was a legal point to be decided by the courts.

The political issue, Mr Fenech said, was whether there was a public purpose to justify the expropriation. No government department had requested the expropriation.  Was the valuation considered justified for public purposes?

Mr Camilleri said he had explained the process reached and the valuations made, but made no recommendations regarding public purpose. What he had sent was a standard letter. It was usual for the minister/parliamentary secretary to then authorize progress.