Updated 11.45am

The public inquiry board into the death of Jean Paul Sofia “made assumptions not supported by evidence” amidst a series of “subjective and senseless statements” in its report, former OHSA CEO Mark Gauci told Times of Malta in an impassioned defence of his work.

Gauci was one of the individuals singled out by the board which, despite acknowledging his expertise and achievements in the field, expressed concern over the “academic” nature of his testimony, saying that OHSA “ought to step out of the ivory tower”.

Gauci retired from his role last year after over two decades at the entity’s helm.

Gauci took exception to the inquiry’s findings, saying that he “absolutely does not agree with the conclusions” and that the board “discounted all evidence that I presented about OHSA’s work”.

“Everyone is accepting the findings as though they are the gospel truth, but nobody is questioning the validity of what is being said. There are many things which are outright wrong,” Gauci insisted.

He raised a series of points upon which he disagreed with the board’s conclusions, arguing that it was factually wrong to say that OHSA was responsible for oversight of a site’s structural solidity.

This, Gauci said, may be true in the case of properties that have already been built, but not for buildings that are still under construction, according to health and safety regulations.

He also said it was wrong to say that OHSA had over €1m stored in the bank which could have been used to employ more inspectors. However, according to the OHSA's audited accounts, available online, the accumulated fund was €1.2m.

“That amount is accumulated surplus, meaning savings of some €70,000 each year over a span of two decades. But OHSA does not have access to those funds, it goes back to the Finance Ministry, as is the practice for any government entity”.

Gauci also had harsh words for the board’s assessment of OHSA chairman David Xuereb, who resigned on Wednesday.  Xuereb was described as “completely detached from the authority’s day-to-day realities” after having made various factual errors in his testimony.

Since Xuereb’s role was non-executive, he shouldn’t have been asked for details about the day-to-day running of the entity, which he couldn’t reasonably be expected to know, Gauci said. While Xuereb “tried to reply as best he could”, it was natural that he would get some minor details wrong, he insisted.

“In other circumstances, this could constitute entrapment”.

‘I followed INDIS policies’: Karl Azzopardi

Karl Azzopardi, who headed INDIS when it “rubber stamped” Malta Enterprise’s approval of the Corradino project, was similarly defiant, saying that he followed INDIS’ established policies and practices at all times.

Azzopardi said that INDIS was not there to scrutinise the work carried out by Malta Enterprise but was responsible to follow up on the process by allocating land or property to a project previously approved by Malta Enterprise.

Azzopardi told Times of Malta that he disagreed with the board’s statement that the agreement did not safeguard the government’s interests.

“I was only involved in the process until the signing of the contract, so what happened throughout the implementation process is after my time, but the contract definitely did safeguard INDIS’ interests and, by extension, that of the government,” he said.

“In fact, lessees often used to complain that agreements were too heavily weighted in favour of the government,” he added.

Azzopardi left the entity by early 2021.

He also said that while he respects the board’s comments on the entity adopting a one-size-fits-all approach to agreements, “it is the praxis for entities to have a standard template for contracts”.

“Contracts were developed through INDIS’ legal department and contracts were watertight.

“This doesn’t mean that there isn’t room for improvement as things evolve.”

'Incorrect assumptions': former Malta Enterprise deputy chair

Peter Borg, who chaired a Malta Enterprise committee that was stridently criticised by the inquiry, also expressed reservations about its findings. 

Borg resigned from the Malta Enterprise board on Wednesday, hours after the inquiry was made public. 

Peter Borg resigned as Malta Enterprise deputy chair.

He said that he did so “because I believe that trust in our public institutions should be beyond doubt", despite what he said were “misconceptions and incorrect assumptions” in the report's findings. 

He noted that neither he nor other committee members were asked to testify.

“The investment committee is a non-executive body whose remit is not to assess such proposals, but to debate and decide upon them, based on documentation and recommendations submitted by Malta Enterprise management,” he said.

“As such, this committee cannot, and should not, be held responsible for any incomplete or untruthful information that may have been submitted to it.”

“The investment committee had followed this procedure since way before my Involvement,” Borg noted.

He said that during his time as Malta Enterprise deputy chair he had repeatedly made calls for improved due diligence and process.

“I am hopeful that the necessary changes and improvements will continue to be driven forward in the interest of good governance and better public administration,” he said.