Roads Minister Jesmond Mugliett yesterday denied that he was in any way involved in the drawing up of plans which a court had said were false, adding that accusations made against him by Labour MP Joe Mizzi were orchestrated to undermine him as a minister.
Mr Mugliett, who was speaking in Parliament, denied that he had ever misled the House on this case and said that although he was involved in helping a constituent, his involvement was limited, correct and he had nothing to be ashamed of.
He had certainly not pressured any public official to change some decision.
Mr Mugliett explained that the case dated back to September 2000 when a constituent, Raymond Farrugia, spoke to him about a problem concerning an enforcement notice issued by Mepa over works on his property.
At the time the remaining works on the property involved the closure of apertures and Mr Farrugia wanted to get it over and done with before winter set in. However, his private architect was abroad and could not immediately reply to the enforcement notice so that the work could resume.
Mr Mugliett said he had accompanied Mr Farrugia to his property and he felt the changes were indeed minor, internal and sanctionable by Mepa. He therefore referred him to another architect in his professional office.
Mr Mugliett said the case had become complicated because Mr Farrugia's neighbour, Dr Anthony Degaetano, a Mepa legal adviser, intercepted the applications and stopped the procedures, ending up filing injunctions against Mepa.
Mr Mugliett said he was involved only once more then, when then Mepa chairman Chris Falzon phoned him to enquire on his own version of events.
Mr Mugliett recalled that Mr Mizzi in earlier remarks in Parliament had first claimed that he had somehow instigated a plot for Dr Degaetano to be sidelined by Mepa, a claim he had denied.
Mr Mizzi then claimed that he (the minister) had given directions on the new plans submitted by the architect, which plans were found to be false by Magistrate Miriam Hayman. This was also not true.
Mr Mugliett said he had in the past challenged Mr Mizzi to make his allegations outside Parliament and thus without parliamentary privilege, but Mr Mizzi had not taken up the challenge. He was now renewing his challenge.
The minister said that Dr DeGaetano after his injunctions also asked the police to act against Mr Farrugia for alleged fraud. But the police refused. Dr DeGaetano then challenged the police to act.
The case was initially heard before Magistrate Carol Peralta, who delivered a vague judgment and the issue ended up before Magistrate Hayman whose judgment was about Mr Farrugia and not whether the minister had intervened in this case.
Indeed, this was a fabrication by The Malta Independent on Sunday and Mr Mizzi.
Mr Mugliett said it was also not true that he was in any way involved in the running of his professional office Sant and Mugliett, as Mr Mizzi had intimated. He gave up such involvement on becoming minister and had also denied such claims before.
And it was also not true that he had tried to influence a public officer in any way. This had been claimed by Mr Mizzi but was never proved.
Suffice to say that no permit or enforcement notice was ever changed. Indeed, to date he did not know the enforcement officer.
As for the claim that the plans were falsified, Mr Mugliett said that although this did not involve him, he wanted to explain that the applicant Mr Farrugia filed his original development application and plans in 1998. The plans were for minimal internal alterations to a stairwell which was to become a yard; new stairs would have been built in the middle of the yard.
The private architect who submitted those plans had omitted to colour-code part of the planned changes on the plan and an enforcement notice was issued after it was alleged that he tried to mislead the authority.
Mr Mugliett said he felt the architect, whom he had no connection to, had made a mistake but Mepa could have otherwise confirmed the plans without the need for the colour coding by comparing old plans of the property, which were available at Mepa, with the new ones. It was obvious that there was no intent to mislead.
Nonetheless, when the enforcement notice was issued Mr Farrugia had sought to file the amended plans. Those plans included a statement saying that the applicant wanted to sanction the shortcomings of the 1998 plan, but Magistrate Hayman ignored this.
In her judgment she said that the possibility of a crime stemmed from the fact that the plans submitted in 1998 were not exact. While what happened in 1998 and 2000 was time barred, the fact that the plans submitted in 2002 were identical to those of 1998 also made them false. She did not call the applicant, any of his architects, or himself, as witness, Mr Mugliett said.
Had she done so, they would have explained the declaration attached to the plans showing that the applicant was trying to have sanctioned by the authority the items which were not clearly indicated in the 1998 plans.
Mr Mizzi in his comments on Monday had also asked whether the Commission against Corruption had investigated this case. Mr Mugliett said that after earlier comments by Mr Mizzi he was asked to testify by the commission, headed by Mr Justice Albert Manche.
He then heard nothing from the commission, and after inquiring was told by the judge that once there had been no further action, it only meant that the commission found the case to be unfounded.
On other passing references by Mr Mizzi, Mr Mugliett said the Labour MP could always check his income since his statements were public. He paid off a loan on his home this year and was only now able to buy a boat with his brother-in-law. There was nothing wrong in this. Other people bought a summer house. He bought a boat. It was dishonest to imply wrongdoing.
Mr Mugliett also denied reports in the Labour Party media that he was summoned by the Prime Minister and told he was being investigated.
Mr Mugliett said nothing of this sort had happened and he was grateful that Dr Gonzi had actually renewed his confidence in him.