Corruption watchdog clears Ian Borg in property case, PN insists he should be sacked

The Permanent Commission Against Corruption has cleared Ian Borg of corruption, in a report into a development application for the parliamentary secretary's Rabat property.

"We found no proof that a crime or attempt to commit a crime took place, according to Malta's corruption laws," the Commission - chaired by retired judge Lawrence Quintano - said in its conclusion.

The commission included Yana Micallef Stafrace and upon the leader of the Opposition Simon Busuttil's recommendation, judge emeritus Joe Cassar. The report will be tabled in Parliament once the Christmas recess is over, but Borg provided a copy to journalists present at the media briefing.

In a press briefing, Borg said that all of the witnesses - that included himself and MEPA officials - had denied being influenced in their actions in any way by his Cabinet position.

"They didn't even know that I was behind the application and only found out after it was reported in the media," he said, referring to a major sticking point in an ombudsman's report on the controversial application, since it was his father who applied for the permit in his name.

In reaction, the Nationalist Party said Prime Minister Joseph Muscat was taking advantage of the festive season to shrug off his responsibilities and refrains from sacking Borg.

“It is clear for all, except Muscat, that Borg should go after the Ombudsman concluded that the permit issued by MEPA was abusive and ‘devious methods’ were deployed to issue the permit.”

The Opposition added that Muscat would have used a different measure had the abuse been committed by a PN MP. “Joseph Muscat has a measuring stick for himself and another for other people,” the PN added.

An Ombudsman's report claimed that Borg used a "devious" method to obtain the MEPA permit for the property by listing his father and a project manager as owners of the property.

However, Borg claimed that this was an entirely normal process and criticised the Planning Ombudsman David Pace for describing it as devious without even investigating him.

"The main reason I listed my father and the project manager was because I am far too busy with my work and they have more time on their hands to deal with the development application than I do.

"I also didn't want to use my name to influence the process in any way."

The property had been sold to him by its 17 owners – an elderly widow, her 14 surviving children and the two children of another daughter who has since died – back in May 2014, and his planning application was filed in June. An appeal against a refusal on part of the land was curiously withdrawn a few weeks before the new application was presented.

The Ombudsman's report noted that MEPA had refused a permit to a certain Kevin Bugeja to construct a new dwelling on the site a year before the same land was acquired by Borg. In its refusal for Bugeja's permit, MEPA noted that the local plan for small hamlets does not permit new developments that take up "fresh land, notwithstanding the location of the site in relation to existing buildings".

This legal argument was not mentioned in MEPA's acceptance letter for Borg's request, despite the fact that both cases were handled by the same case officer, Mariella Haber.

The local plan also says MEPA must “seriously curtail the taking up of fresh land for buildings for the creation of new dwelling units, which increase densities and activity in the settlement”.

All it needed was a “simple cut and paste” exercise, the planning ombudsman David Pace noted in his own-initiative report into the Borg permit.

However, Borg reiterated MEPA's legal rebuttal - that the local plan allows redevelopment on sites with a footprint that exceeds 50 square metres, and that Bugeja had applied to redevelop part of the building occupying a footprint of 35 square metres. To fulfill the policy criteria, Borg also purchased an adjacent farmhouse, hence increasing the footprint to 95 square metres.

"I have no idea why David Pace didn't mention this legal argument in his report, but even the Ombudsman [Joseph Said Pullicino] has disowned the report and said that he cannot guarantee that it doesn't contain any mistakes," Borg said.

In the first application that was refused a permit, the take-up of “fresh land” was noted, while the case report for Borg’s application did not even refer to the undeveloped land still forming part of the application.

“The crux of the matter is that the definition of fresh land applied in the first permit which was not approved, was not applied in Borg’s permit,” the ombudsman noted, leading him to the conclusion that this omission was not down to human error but a “deliberate attempt to remove the one remaining obstacle blocking approval of the application”.

Case officer Haber has defended herself, insisting that while in the first case the undeveloped plot earmarked for construction was considered to be “back land”, in the second case it was considered as a “back yard”, the result of a reconfiguration of the site.

But the ombudsman has reiterated that the local plan simply bans the uptake of new land in rural hamlets “notwithstanding the location of the site in relation to existing buildings”.