Dismantling Malta’s environment and democracy: Full steam ahead

Conveniently, in the midst of the summer lull, Planning Minister Clint Camilleri deemed it timely and appropriate to present Bill Number 143 to amend the Development Planning Act, while Minister Jonathan Attard presented Bill 144 to overhaul the law on the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT). 

These bills created a furore among the relevant stakeholders and the public. Like them, I believe that these bills are anti-democratic and will lead to dangerous precedents. 

The right to information of the citizens and the obligation of the Planning Authority to make information about applications and permits public will be limited. This severely hampers transparency, not to mention that it runs counter to the Aarhus Convention. 

The definition of the hierarchy of laws as we know it is being rudely redefined. The hierarchy of laws exists for a reason. Imagine a pyramid, where the most fundamental laws are at the peak and act as protectors of the whole system, while less authoritative laws, legal notices, special legislations, and policies have a lower ranking of seniority. These bills propose to topple this pyramid of laws and then pick and choose applicable laws and policies according to the circumstances of the case. 

They retain a similar mentality to that of contractors—demolish and rebuild irrespective of consequences or dangers. This will set a dangerous precedent, accelerating the erosion of our democracy. 

As head of the executive, Robert Abela seems to take a leaf out of Donald Trump’s book to give himself broad powers, shielding governmental decisions from the purview of the courts, throwing us back to the 1980s. 

The government and its authorities and departments will be exempt from declaring whether they are owners of properties they wish to demolish or develop. 

Whilst a person objecting to any proposed development needs to object in a very formal manner and list all grievances according to the laws and policies applicable, the Planning Board in its decision can deviate from the applicable policies and such deviation shall not be considered as a mistake of law or judgement simply because the policies do not state that the board does not retain such discretion. 

This will open a can of worms as it gives too much power and subjective discretion to the Planning Board, whilst limiting the rights of objectors. In addition, objections to permits issued as a result of fraudulent, deceptive, or erroneous submissions, declarations, or documentation will be time-barred after one year—one of the shortest prescription periods for civil action in Maltese law. 

The setup of the Planning Board and the registry will resemble that of a court, with more formality and stringent conditions for applicants and objectors. This is also a departure from the legal doctrine that boards and tribunals should lack formality, be more people-friendly, and operate according to the laws applicable and the principles of natural justice. 

The EPRT will have the power to appoint officers and experts, and the chairperson of the EPRT will have the power to appoint himself and others as officers or experts. This is a legal heresy committed by those who want to erase the definition of conflict of interest from our legal dictionary. 

Height limitations and restrictions have now, scandalously, become minor amendments. Works underway will not be suspended for the duration of proceedings if time periods are not adhered to. Does the prime minister recall committing himself to curbing this abusive practice (created by his own government) back in 2023? Evidently not. 

The time limits for appeals have been shortened, whilst fines that cannot be reviewed by a court will be awarded if the tribunal deems that an appeal is frivolous and vexatious. The formality of submissions before the Planning Board and appeal applications before the EPRT will mean that any person who intends to object or appeal will need to appoint an architect and a lawyer, adding financial burdens to the inconvenience and suffering of the objector or appellant. 

The time periods for decisions of the EPRT and the Court of Appeal have been drastically shortened, with the possibility of a single extension. This may impinge on citizens’ right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and will decrease the quality and substance of decisions and judgments. 

Judicial review has been severely restricted, and the courts will no longer be able to syndicate on matters of fact, even if there is a wrongful interpretation of them, and on penalties issued. This limitation will seemingly apply not only to the Court of Appeal but also to the First Hall of the Civil Court, which has the authority to review administrative acts and decisions. This marks a new low for our planning rights, with the only remaining redress being constitutional. 

Long gone are the promises made by Labour about a modern and progressive movement. The masks have fallen, the gloves are off. This is nothing less than a despotic government whose efforts to seize total control are designed to appease its developer friends at our expense.