|
Julian Manduca
MEPA's Senior Enforcement Officer said former Director of Planning Stephen Farrugia told him to halt action on an illegal development because it was being dealt with by a higher authority, MaltaToday can reveal.
Questioned about the matter, Environment Minister George Pullicino told this newspaper he had advised Farrugia to proceed carefully because the case involved religious sentiments that could be offended. The case concerns an illegal mosque in Sliema. It would appear that Pullicino's words convinced Stephen Farrugia that action on the illegal development should be stopped.
The interference of a higher authority in MEPA's business was revealed by an auditor's report which quoted an email message sent by Senior Enforcement Officer Johann Buttigieg in June of 2004 to Farrugia's successor, acting director of planning Matthew Gatt which stated that “the ex-Director (Stephen Farrugia) has given an explicit order not to intervene in this situation and that it was being dealt with by higher authority. I was also instructed to inform complainant that matter was referred to higher authority.”
One year after that message MEPA has failed to take action on the illegal development, and questions put to the Authority this week remained unanswered until going to press.
The Environment Minister's spokesperson told MaltaToday, “The Minister told him (Farrugia) that since the issue involved religious sentiment and also fundamental human rights one should proceed cautiously because the Authority could easily be accused of offending religious sentiment at a crucial time.”
The case concerns the use of a private residence at 126A Tower Road Sliema, which is being used as a place of religious worship or Mosque. According to a protest made in court by Dr Franco Vassallo the proprietor, Harry Calleja threatened his neighbours to allow his apartment to be used by the Moslem community for free to annoy and irritate the neighbours after they had objected to Calleja’s plans to develop his apartment.
Vassallo drew the attention of MEPA’s auditor to the case and a report was drawn up that was also presented in court. In his report the auditor refers to interference by a higher authority and commented “This Office will not go into the matter of who will instruct direct action to close down premises. This duty devolves on the Authority. However, this Office would like to express its concern on what seems to be an attempt to give preferential treatment to this case. The impression is that this is a political matter and a final decision is to be taken at the highest level. No explanation could be given for this unusual treatment of an relatively simple illegal development.”
In his report the auditor pointed out that the file related to the enforcement notice was ‘misplaced’. The auditor even went as far as suggesting that files were purposely lost at MEPA and wrote: “I am finding that it is a very convenient way how to obstruct investigations by ‘losing’ the relative files. I have already remarked on the fact that files seem to get lost at a considerable rate, and that in unacceptable.”
He also stated that “the Authority should tighten up internal control on the movement of files to ensure that the loss or non traceability (sic) of files is an exception and not a frequent occurrence.”
Contacted about the matter Minister Pullicino told MaltaToday he did not accept files being lost “all the more if the lost files result in difficulties for the Audit Office to carry out its duties within the limits of the law.”
In his conclusions to his report the auditor stated categorically that MEPA should enforce its decisions “irrespective of the level at which a decision has to be taken, the Authority has a duty to stop illegal developments.”
Lawyer Franco Vassallo also noted how the apartment’s proprietor Harry Calleja allowed Toutoungi Mowafak to use premises as a place of worship as retaliation for the refusal of the permit. MEPA however slammed an enforcement notice on Calleja and Mowafak claiming they carried out a development without a permit by changing its use for a public purpose and affixing a sign to advertise it.
The court of appeal upheld MEPA’s decision but Vassallo pointed out to the court that MEPA did not take action to enforce its decision. According to MEPA’s records the case has so far involved six site visits since 2 July 2001 and the appeal was dismissed on 5 June 2002. Dr Vassallo has been writing to the authority for over three years protesting at this state of affairs – with hindsight perhaps naïvely – asserting that there should be no higher authority than the law itself.
The place of worship is still open to the public.
julian@newsworksltd.com
|
