It is not ethical to go into the merits of court cases that are still sub-judice and I will respect such a norm. In spite of this I cannot but question something that came to light on Monday while a planning liaison officer was testifying.

If the officer in question was a Mepa official why was his office - according to his own testimony - situated at the Ministry for Rural Affairs and the Environment rather than at Mepa itself, particularly when Mepa was always meant to be an autonomous institution?

Since he was apparently carrying out customer car duties at the ministry, was he doing so on behalf of those who called at the ministry with their personal complaints? One finds little solace in the fact that he stated "that his office was open to absolutely everyone".

Does Mepa itself have its own customer care office? If so what was the need for such duplication of work?

And finally, who had authorised that this planning authority liaison officer should operate from a minister's office? Mepa or the minister himself?

An answer to these questions will surely help us shed more light on what could have triggered the Prime Minister to decide on election eve to announce that as from this legislature Mepa would have formed part of his domain rather than remaining Minister George Pullicino's responsibility.