Attorney General approves MEPA chairman’s appointment
James Debono On Monday the Office of the Attorney General wrote to the Prime Minister to confirm the legality of the appointment Austin Walker as MEPA’s executive chairman, dispelling doubts over the validity of permits issued under his tenure.
The Prime Minister sought the advice of the Attorney General after MaltaToday revealed that MEPA auditor Joe Falzon was questioning the legality of Walker’s appointment.
Falzon had already asked Walker to seek the advice of the AG regarding the legality of his “double role” as board chairman and an executive officer – a position which effectively makes him an employee of the Authority.
A spokesperson for the Prime Minister confirmed that the government had not sought legal advice when Walker was originally appointed, but confirmed that legal advice was sought from MEPA’s lawyers when the Auditor started questioning Walker’s appointment.
The planning authority’s ombudsman questioned the legality of Austin Walker’s appointment as MEPA executive chairman because the Development Planning Act states that “no person shall be qualified to be appointed as, or remain, a member of the Authority if he is a public officer or a member, officer or servant of any agency of the Government.”
“The Development Planning Act makes it clear that any servant of a public agency cannot serve on the board. As a MEPA employee, the new MEPA chairman is a servants of a public agency,” Falzon told MaltaToday.
But in his letter to the Prime Minister, Acting Attorney General Peter Grech concluded that Walker’s appointment “is not rendered illegal by virtue of the fact that he has been appointed to serve as ‘executive chairman’ or by the fact that he received remuneration for his services to the Authority.”
According to Grech the purpose of the law is not to exclude board members from receiving remuneration from MEPA after their appointment but to exclude people who are already holding “certain offices or performing certain functions in government agencies from being eligible for appointment to the authority.”
“One has to distinguish between restrictions on the eligibility of individuals to be appointed to the Authority as independent members and restrictions on the receipt of remuneration after appointment,” the Acting Attorney General said in his letter.
Unlike Walker, MEPA’s former chairman, Andrew Calleja, was not responsible for MEPA’s day-to-day running and he was only paid an honorarium.
But according to the Acting Attorney General since “they receive remuneration for their work from the Authority both ‘Executive’ and ‘Non executive’ chairmen qualify as employees of the authority within the strict terms of employment law.”
But auditor Joe Falzon had pointed out that the law was also intended to prevent conflicts of interest.
“Austin Walker’s double role as chairman of the board and MEPA’s full-time employee could expose him to a conflict of interest. Being responsible for all that happens within MEPA, he does not enter board meetings with a clean slate,” Falzon contends.
In his comments to MaltaToday, MEPA Auditor Joe Falzon also questioned the legality of the appointment of MEPA employee Roderick Galdes as the opposition’s representative on the MEPA board.
In a letter sent to the MEPA Auditor, Galdes wrote that the Opposition had sought legal advice before his appointment on the board.
Galdes also points out that the law exempts the two members of the House of Representatives. one of whom was appointed by the Prime Minister and the other by the Leader of the Opposition, from the four restrictions contemplated in the law.
The law prohibits public servants, servants of public agencies, members of parliament and members of local councils from serving on the board, but qualifies this ban by referring to the article of the law referring to the appointment of two members of parliament.
Auditor Joe Falzon has already replied to Galdes informing him that he is still convinced that his appointment was illegal.
According to Falzon the law only exempts the Opposition’s appointee on the board from a clause restricting MPs from serving on the board.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
