Protecting our national patrimony

The news that experts from Heritage Malta were watching the proceedings during an auction of the personal property of former Maltese Prime Minister Dr. Gorg Borg Olivier, so that the state heritage agency would be in a position to buy back those objects considered to be part of our national patrimony because of their artistic and historical value, did not go down with one of my friends.

He argued that the law giving the right to the State to adopt this procedure was unfair to the winning bidder who would have wasted his time and energy making the winning bid in vain. I ventured to reply that at least it is not unjust to the vendor and this is what matters most in the circumstances.

The argument did not stop there because I also asked what would the fairest procedure to all. The reply was that the state should bid with private individuals for those items that it deemed should belong to it as part of our national patrimony.

But this only works if the State does not have the right to declare something of national importance and ensure its possession. Otherwise, this is, of course, a non-starter. If in such an auction everyone knows which items are wanted by the State, two different scenarios might ensue: Nobody bothers to bid against the state as everyone knows it will get the item willy-nilly. This is unfair to the vendors who do not get the right price for their property; and somebody starts bidding against the state in order to push the price up artificially. This is unfair to the state.

On being floored, my friend then suggested that perhaps the state should decide which objects it wants and appoint an ‘independent’ arbiter to value them at a fair price. Even here this way of doing things could lead to abuses, one way or another.

The procedure that the law imposes: buying the chosen object at the hammer price, irrespective of who wins the bid ensures the transfer of the property to the state at the right price – the price an individual was genuinely ready to pay for it.

However it is true that the bidder of the highest price would end up being ‘used’ for the establishment of the price and gets nothing for his pains, something that irked my friend no end. Yet while it obviously inconveniences and infuriates the bidder who would have thought that he got what he wanted only to fall at the last unexpected hurdle, this procedure is fair to both the vendor and to the state.

Naturally all this hinges on the correctness of the assessment that an object is really a part of our national patrimony and that there is no one at Heritage Malta who is abusing of the powers emanating from the law that protects our national heritage. Abuse could even take the form of hounding one successful bidder while closing one’s eyes in the case of another.

Rumour has it that quite some time ago – before Heritage Malta was set up – the minister responsible for the sector invoked the law to obtain a nice piece of furniture for his office – the one in the ministry, of course! The shocked successful bidder complained to the Prime Minister, who then ensured that such a blatant abuse was not carried out.

Nice story! Whatever it is, at the end of the day, all laws depend on the good faith – bona fede – and impartiality of those who apply them. Here’s the rub!