Fortina: Questions raised over legitimacy of parliamentary audit committee decision

The legitimacy of a unanimous decision taken by parliament’s national audit committee on the Fortina case has been called into question, after the committee declared that all valuations carried out by the National Audit Office (NAO) were either incomplete or inconsistent with Lands Authority laws.

In a statement published Tuesday, Momentum Chairperson Arnold Cassola criticised the process, saying the discussion should have taken place in parliament’s plenary session rather than being confined to the committee. Cassola also alleged that two of the five committee members who participated in the decision had clear conflicts of interest which they failed to declare.

“The president of this committee, Minister Ian Borg, was the minister for lands when the concession was granted to Fortina,” Cassola said. “Meanwhile, PN MP Ryan Callus, who replaced Darren Carabott for this sitting, also has a conflict of interest as he sat on the Lands Authority board of governors, which was heavily criticised in the NAO report.”

Momentum later clarified that Callus had originally voted against the Fortina concession in 2019.

Cassola argued that such conflicts undermine the credibility of the committee’s work and deprive the public of transparency. “Why was this important discussion not held in parliament, where all MPs could participate and vote?” he asked.

The comments come three weeks after the Nationalist Party parliamentary group decided not to pursue legal action to rescind the Fortina concession. Only the attorney general, the state advocate, or a sitting MP could have initiated such a move. The PN has not publicly explained its decision.

Cassola drew parallels with the Fort Chambray case, saying that once again parliament was being “deprived of an open discussion and vote”. He urged that all future debates on such sensitive matters be held in full parliamentary sittings, with MPs required to declare any potential conflicts of interest before voting.

“Transparency and accountability demand that decisions of this scale be made in the open, not behind closed doors,” Cassola said.