The property in Old Mint Street that has been at the centre of a controversial expropriation. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier

The controversial deal to expropriate a Valletta property from Mark Gaffarena “stinks of corruption”, the Opposition said as it called on the Auditor General to investigate the case.

The Prime Minister should shoulder responsibility for this “scandal”, since the government property division falls directly under his responsibility, the Nationalist Party insisted during a press conference yesterday in front of the building in Old Mint Street that is at the centre of the controversy.

The government has accepted the Opposition’s request for an investigation.

Last Sunday, this newspaper revealed that the government had bought half the ownership of the property for €1.65 million.

It paid Mr Gaffarena, who has multiple business interests, through different parcels of land and €516,390 in cash in two separate contracts.

The scandal continued to deepen as independent architects commissioned by Times of Malta concluded that the public land that the government had given to Mr Gaffarena was exceedingly undervalued.

Did taxpayers get value for money from the deal?

Their conservative estimates increased the worth of the land by at least another €1.6 million, which doubles the value of the payment Mr Gaffarena got. The parcels of land are at Ta’ Kandja, White Rocks, Żebbuġ, Ħandaq, and a property at Manuel Dimech Street, Sliema.

Mr Gaffarena has strategic and commercial interests in all the properties. MPs Jason Azzopardi, Marthese Portelli and Ryan Callus focused particularly on the Sliema property since its value will increase exponentially next year when it becomes freehold.

The land he was given at White Rocks has also been earmarked for hotel development.

What the PN asked the Auditor General to investigate:

• Did taxpayers get value for money from the deal?

• Were the principles of good governance and transparency followed in this transaction?

• Did any public officials or civil servants facilitate the transfer of confidential information to third parties?

• If so, were the actions of such public officials in breach of the criminal code? Were rules governing the actions of civil servants breached?

• When the government property division classified the Valletta property as a building site rather than a historical site, was this an honest assessment?

• Was the advice of the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage sought in the assessment of the property as a building site?

• Has the deal set a dangerous precedent that will force the government to expropriate all properties rented out for commercial purposes or offices by 2028 – the deadline for eviction according to the revised rent laws?

• Did the government property division reply to the legal letter received last August? If not, why?

• Who was the government property division negotiating with last year?

• Were the valuations on parcels of land given to Mark Gaffarena accurate and fair in accordance with present market values?

• Did the government property division use due diligence in giving Mr Gaffarena the property in Manuel Dimech Street, Sliema, considering that its value will increase next year?

• Was the hefty expenditure justified when citizens have been waiting to be paid smaller amounts for property expropriated decades ago?

• Who made the request for expropriation, and who decided to purchase it bit by bit?

• Is it normal practice for the government property division to expropriate property in fractions?

• Does the government really need this building, paying more than €3 million, when it has many other properties that can house the Building Consultative Council?

• Does it make sense for thec government to expropriate first one quarter and then another quarter, when it would have cost less to buy it all at once?

• Was it Mr Gaffarena who chose the land he was given, since he has a commercial and strategic interest in all of them?

• Considering the chronology of developments, does the deal merit disciplinary or criminal action against those who did not fulfil their duties?