Manoel Island: How Abela and Grech wavered under pressure

Robert Abela 

11 May: “Taking Manoel Island back from a consortium of developers would cost the country hundreds of millions… the moment the state expropriates, you need to offer compensation… Maybe the developer would like it because he will get millions without having to do the development. But would I be using the people’s money responsibly?” 

26 May: “The last thing that is ever mentioned when it comes to Manoel Island is that 60 per cent is open space for the public.” 

1 June: "If the government withdraws the concession agreement, it will be only a momentary populist act…The truth is that 60% of the project is dedicated to green, open public spaces and a further 20% is dedicated to historic sites which the developers are obliged to restore at an estimated cost of €150 million… This won’t be a quick buck development, but a template of how we should attract quality tourism. The solution is not to scrap the project, but it’s not to prioritise development over everything else, either. Why don’t we make this project a national one?” Abela also pointed out that the project has attracted 5,000 local bondholders. “These 5,000 people are concerned, and it is my job to hear everyone out and ensure the project is the best for all.” 

3 June: “I have asked for an analysis from a legal perspective, as well as in terms of planning, timelines and permits, to see if there are any breaches of the concession.” Abela hinted at possible legal action against MIDI in case of a breach, saying he “is not excluding any way forward…There is no final decision about the matter yet, we need to see what emerges from the analysis of the concession and act accordingly… The only solution I am excluding is that the government compensates the speculators with hundreds of millions of Euros. They have already taken enough from that concession…The contract betrays the interests of the Maltese people and favours the speculators.” 

Bernard Grech 

29 May: “Without a doubt, we need to take note of the petition and surely we won’t ignore anyone irrespective of the numbers…But we believe in the rule of law… the government has an obligation to respect the country’s commitments… in the name of Maltese citizens, the government is in a position to examine and see what responsibilities the government has based on what it promised years ago…having a national park would be a beautiful dream but we cannot ignore obligations…on the basis of this information (following an analysis of the contract), which could be the subject of legal procedures if there is no agreement, one can enter into negotiations to consider the options…Still if there is a contract it should be honoured by everyone.. I insist that the government should look at the contract and be transparent about this.” 

2 June: “I reiterate that the idea that Manoel Island should become a national park is a beautiful idea but till now a contract exists which establishes the obligations of both sides. Therefore, I insist that the government should be transparent and check whether conditions have been breached. We will keep insisting on this.” 

4 June: “The public interest in the case of Manoel Island demands that, since we are still in time and no construction has started, we must do everything possible to transform the site into a national park… While we acknowledge that a concession exists, the Government has both a responsibility and a duty, in the name of the Maltese people, to ensure that the terms of the contract are respected, and to verify whether any of the conditions have been breached.” 

***

In the face of a backlash from within their own parties and the general public, both political leaders have changed their tone on the Manoel Island concession. 

The reason for this is that the non-partisan outcry to turn Manoel Island into a national park resonates with public sentiment. Building nearly 400 apartments in one of the last major open spaces in a densely populated area jars with this sentiment. 

In Abela’s case, it was not merely a change in emphasis and tone. While his earlier statements made no mention of a legal analysis of the contract to assess whether MIDI is in breach of its obligations. On Tuesday Abela firmly committed to such an analysis in terms of planning, timelines, and permits “to see if there are any breaches of the concession.” For the first time, Abela did not rule out rescinding the contract. 

This is precisely what the promoters of the petition have been demanding for the past few years. It even aligns Abela with the stance taken by Arnold Cassola in 2017, when he rebuked Marlene Farrugia for suggesting compensation to MIDI instead of investigating a possible breach of contract. 

And whereas Abela had previously defended the positive aspects of the MIDI project, emphasising the open spaces it includes, on Tuesday he portrayed it as a negative legacy of the Fenech Adami administration, omitting the fact that the agreement was unanimously approved by Parliament in 1999 and negotiated under both PN and PL administrations. On Wednesday, he went further, describing the concession contract as daylight robbery intended to appease individuals close to the PN. 

No compensation for speculators 

Still, Abela has remained consistent on one point: excluding any compensation, which he insists could cost taxpayers “hundreds of millions.” 

While maintaining that all options remain open, including legal action against MIDI, he has ruled out “compensating the speculators with hundreds of millions of euros,” arguing that “they have already taken enough from that concession.” 

Yet even here, a shift in tone is evident. Abela initially praised the MIDI project as a potentially “national project” featuring open spaces. Now, he frames it as an exercise in land speculation. 

Some may suspect that Abela is merely responding to public sentiment, knowing full well that the legal analysis may not reveal any breaches warranting termination of the contract, leaving financial compensation as the only means to reclaim Manoel Island for the public. Nevertheless, his argument against compensation cannot be dismissed lightly, given its implications for government spending and other social priorities. 

This also raises the question: why does the Prime Minister not quantify the compensation that would be owed to MIDI if the contract were terminated, even if doing so would imply considering an option he adamantly opposes? 

By excluding compensation, Abela has made it clear that rescinding the contract remains the only viable route to reclaiming Manoel Island, something that depends on finding a breach. This places the onus on those carrying out the legal analysis, a process that Abela says will involve Edward Zammit Lewis, a PL backbencher critical of the concession, and party president Alex Sciberras, who signed the petition. While their involvement lends political weight to the process, it also raises the question of whether a respected public body, such as the National Audit Office, would be more suitable for such an analysis. 

Abela’s quandary 

Surely this does not resolve Abela’s quandary. He evidently felt compelled to acknowledge public sentiment, evoking memories of past U-turns, such as the Jean Paul Sofia inquiry and his reversal on the Marsaskala yacht marina, which he abandoned before the 2022 election after resurrecting it during the pandemic. 

As with the Sofia inquiry, Abela has shifted from a rigid legalistic stance rejecting a popular demand to one that seeks to accommodate it. 

But this time, Abela faces two major constraints: the contract itself, which cannot be ignored on the basis of political expediency, and his party’s ties to big business, including entities connected to MIDI and its potential development partners. 

That is why he now stresses the need for “caution against impulsive actions,” adding that he “will not try to spin this issue as one that is already decided—because it’s not.” 

Abela knows that his comments have raised the expectations of those calling for Manoel Island to be reclaimed. At the same time, he is wary of antagonising the developers’ lobby, which holds sway through financial donations. 

The dilemma for Abela is that a decision must eventually be made: either allow the development to proceed in the face of public disappointment, or stop it through legal means, which could unsettle a powerful lobby. In this sense, the ship has sailed—with the captain unsure of its destination. 

One possibility is that Abela initiated the legal review fully aware that it would lead nowhere. However, the politically astute Prime Minister understands that in doing so, he has heightened expectations among those who signed the petition. He may ultimately say that he tried his best but failed, but that could carry political risks, especially with an election approaching. 

Grech’s own goal 

While Abela has shifted position by endorsing a legal analysis of the contract, opposition leader Bernard Grech has backed himself into a rhetorical corner, despite taking a more consistent stance. 

Grech rightly notes that he was the first to call for a legal review to investigate potential breaches. However, in his initial statement, he focused on respecting contractual obligations and described the idea of turning Manoel Island into a national park as “a beautiful dream,” an unfortunate choice of words that implied the idea was unrealistic. This gave the impression that his main concern was to avoid upsetting powerful interests, whose financial support his party also seeks. 

By adopting an overly cautious stance, Grech failed to set the political agenda. 

Although he continued to press for a legal review, it was only on Wednesday, after Abela changed tack, that Grech clearly stated that politicians should do everything possible to turn Manoel Island into a national park by identifying any breaches in the contract. This marks a shift from merely respecting the concession terms to actively seeking a legal basis for restoring public ownership. 

Had Grech taken this line earlier, he might have been seen as the agenda-setter. Although his party's clearer stance now adds pressure on the Prime Minister, Grech has once again trailed behind civil society, and even members of his own party, rather than leading them. 

While the same can be said of Abela, who only responded after being pressed by his party’s president and MPs, expectations are different for a Prime Minister. Abela, constrained by office and perceived as close to developers, faces different scrutiny compared to an opposition that portrays itself as the people’s champion. 

Ironically, both leaders have, in the space of a week, tried to present themselves as tribunes of the people.  

The question is: how long will this moment last?