Malta Enterprise committee misled by application for construction project that killed Sofia

Malta Enterprise’s Investment Committee, the entity tasked with assessing and assisting expansion proposals by small businesses and startups, claims it was misled by Malta Enterprise's managment, insisting that it had never approved a five-storey factory and had only approved a one-floor workshop. 

The Committee was reacting to the scathing criticism it received in the final report of the Sofia inquiry, which described the assessment that was carried out as “superficial.”

The statement was signed by former Investment Committee members Peter Borg, Frank Farrugia, Paul Abela, Victor Carachi and Dana Farrugia, all of whom had resigned after the publication of the Jean Paul Sofia Public Inquiry Report. 

The Inquiry Board observed that Malta Enterprise had not requested the architect’s drawings of the proposed building site at Corradino, saying that  “this means that Malta Enterprise would not know whether, in a 300sqm site, there will be a single-storey, two-storey, or five-storey building.”

But in a statement on Saturday, the Committee said the project that was being built bore no resemblance to the one that it had given the green light to.

“This is what the Investment Committee approved. A workshop of 300 m2 on one floor and nothing more.  We wish to make it absolutely clear that at no point did the Investment Committee approve a five-floor factory, and that once the Investment Committee had approved the allocation proposed by Malta Enterprise management, its role in this matter, as in every other proposal, terminated. The Investment Committee’s role is to approve proposals for industrial aid, not to supervise its use. That task falls within the remit of other bodies.” 

“Since the Committee's inception, proposals were always assessed on whether the proposed projects had a reasonably good chance of business success, and in the absence of any red flags, the allocation of industrial space would be approved.” 

The Committee lamented the fact that it had not been given an opportunity to explain this to the inquiry, saying that “since no member of the Investment Committee was ever asked by the Public Inquiry to testify or supply information or documents, we were not in a position to clarify these matters.” 

“We believe that, in the light of the above facts, the conclusion that our intervention in this matter was, in any way whatsoever, superficial is with, all due respect, unwarranted and incorrect.”. 

The clarification ended with a veiled threat of legal action, stating that “the fact that the conclusion of the Inquiry Board that we acted in a “superficial” manner affects our right to enjoy a good reputation within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. We reserve all our rights in this regard.”