Manoel Island: Robert Abela should not snub his ‘shareholders’

There is no doubt that MIDI plc enjoys property rights on Manoel Island that emanate from the contract signed with the government in 2000. The deed granted the company a 99-year lease on Tigné Point and Manoel Island. 

The deed allows, or rather, obliges the company to develop the two areas for commercial and residential purposes.  

The rights emanating from this contract cannot be brushed aside or trampled upon as if they do not exist. In a country governed by the rule of law it is expected that these rights should remain intact no matter what the majority believe should happen. It is the contract that defines when and if any part of it should be rescinded and if any changes are prospected, these must be agreed to by both sides. 

This is the starting point of any conversation over Manoel Island and the ongoing campaign pressuring government to claim back the island as public land. 

The petition by Moviment Graffitti and Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar, has found the backing of 29,000 signatories and many more who did not make the deadline. 

The campaigners are urging the government to take back the island on the strength of a clause in the contract that states the project should be substantially ready by March 2026. They insist the takeover should not be hostile but rather a buyback that compensates MIDI shareholders for any work already carried out on Manoel Island. 

The island, they insist, should then be turned into a big public park, providing a breather for the heavily congested conurbation around Marsamxett Harbour. 

The activists’ call is not unreasonable albeit bordering on the unfeasible, not least because if compensation is due to MIDI shareholders this could run into millions of euros. 

MIDI’s shareholding is varied and although the five biggest shareholders (holding 5% or more of the share capital)—Alf. Mizzi & Sons, MAPFRE MSV Life, Gasan Enterprises, Mark Andrew Weingard and Rizzo Farrugia & Co.—have between them a commanding stake of 56.2%, the rest of the shareholding is held by many other institutional and private investors. It will be a hard sell to reach a deal that is widely agreeable. 

MIDI CEO Mark Portelli recently told MaltaToday in no uncertain terms that giving up Manoel Island is “not a discussion we can have”. 

He insisted that the substantial completion deadline for 2026 can be moved further into the future because of delays in the planning process and archaeological investigations that had to be completed. He insisted that the contract does make provisions for such delays to be taken into consideration. 

Portelli’s words are not surprising. He would not be fit for his job had he spoken otherwise. He has to defend the interests of MIDI’s shareholders. 

What is surprising though is government’s response. When asked about the Manoel Island campaign, Prime Minister Robert Abela was abrupt in shutting down the argument, insisting the millions that would be due to shareholders would rather be spent otherwise and elsewhere. Rather than adopting a more nuanced approach that takes on board the request of his ‘shareholders’—the public—Abela simply acted as the company’s lawyer. 

This leader understands the argument that if millions have to be spent to claim back Manoel Island, the question should be asked whether these sums could be spent more judiciously in other areas—greening projects on public land in urban areas; healthcare facilities; educational facilities and others. 

But the prime minister’s attitude to simply shut the door was wrong. 

While it is expected of MIDI to justify an extension in the deadline by quoting planning and archaeological delays, we expect the government to carry out its own investigation to determine whether a fresh extension is warranted. 

As a party to the contract, the government has a duty to assess whether the conditions in the contract have been adhered to; whether the extension being requested by MIDI is justified; and if so by how many years. The government should be requesting legal advice to determine whether the grounds exist for Manoel Island to be claimed back and if so, what sort of compensation are we talking about, if at all. All this can then be debated in parliament—after all both major parties negotiated and voted for the concession agreement. 

While a 29,000-strong petition cannot be used to deny the company its acquired rights, it should serve as a mandate for government to explore the issue in greater depth. 

Former Prime Minister Alfred Sant, whose administration between 1996 and 1998 had conducted negotiations with MIDI, in a recent blogpost on The Malta Independent wrote: “I find less than convincing the government’s argument for why it should not arrange that Manoel Island gets converted into a green space.” 

It is significant that someone like Sant, who was once in favour of the Tigné and Manoel Island project, should speak this way. 

Abela’s outright and immediate defence of the company feeds into the perception that politicians are indebted to big business. He should have at least tried to explore the idea proposed by his ‘shareholders’—that is where we expect his loyalty to lie.