I refer to the February 21 report on the Mistra court case hearing held on the preceding day.
I would like to draw attention to the fact that the report (unsigned) was entirely misleading and full of inaccuracies which consequently portray a false impression of the court proceedings. It transpires that this fact was also pointed out through a comment which was made online on timesofmalta.com by the former Mepa chairman himself, who testified in court on the day.
The report gives the impression that I had attended high level meetings in connection with the Mistra development applications, when this was not the case at all. In fact the former Mepa chairman explicitly stated in court that no meetings were ever held with him in connection with the Mistra applications. He further explained that he had no reason to question my presence. Any meeting I attended related to applications filed by the MTA and my presence was a result of my work as a consultant with the MTA or the ministry.
The report also stated that I had asked the MTA architect to convert the application from outline to full without giving him a reason, implying deliberate wrongdoing, when in court the architect actually testified that this was normal practice and was applied in the case of other applications, for example in the case of the Bugibba beach project. Furthermore he stated that it was normal that he received such instructions from me or the relevant MTA director for this type of project.
The Times report further stated that I had acted as a consultant to Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, which is entirely not true. Nowhere was this ever stated by anyone.
It is also pertinent to point out that in the report of Tuesday, February 18, following another hearing of the Mistra case involving a former DCC chairman and board member, it was stated that I had penned two reports for MTA to issue the compliance certificate, when in fact the two reports referred to were submitted months after MTA issued the certificate and its "approval" to the project.
It also appears that no reference whatsoever was made to this during the testimony given in court on the day.
Clearly The Times' reporting of this case appears to be grossly inaccurate and is consequently giving the public reason to draw the wrong conclusions regarding my involvement. In this regard I ask this newspaper to ensure that future reporting about the case remains faithful to actual proceedings.