Court rejects eNGO representative’s bid to block removal from Planning Board

A court has rejected an application by environmental activist Jorge Spiteri for a prohibitory injunction that would have prevented the Planning Authority from excluding him from the Planning Board.

On Wednesday, a decree held that the warrant sought by Spiteri was being used to force the PA to act positively rather than to stop an unlawful act, which is the proper purpose of such an injunction.

The case stemmed from Spiteri’s claim to remain the member representing environmental non-governmental organisations (eNGOs) on the Planning Board under article 63 of the Development Planning Act.

Jorge Spiteri was replaced by Romano Cassar as environmental NGOs representative on the Planning Board following a vote.

Spiteri had asked the court to bar the PA from treating him as no longer a member, and from preventing him from attending, participating in, or voting at board meetings in that capacity.

In its reply, the Authority raised several objections. It argued that Spiteri, as a public officer, was disqualified from sitting on the board under article 63(4)(a) of the Act. It also submitted that his name had not been directly nominated by registered eNGOs and that the organisations had subsequently voted for another representative.

The PA further contended that a prohibitory injunction cannot be used to compel a public body to take positive action, as Spiteri was effectively seeking.

Judge Clarke upheld these arguments. She held that a prohibitory injunction is a negative remedy designed to prevent specific unlawful acts and cannot serve as a mandatory order regulating the conduct of a public authority.

The court therefore rejected the application in its entirety and ordered Spiteri to pay all costs.

The PA welcomed the decree, reiterating its commitment to appoint board members, including eNGO representatives, strictly in accordance with the statutory framework.