A Planning Authority employee was transferred to an 'independent' planning appeals board with a written guarantee that he could return to the authority after his stint with the tribunal ended, raising conflict of interest concerns.
Documents seen by Times of Malta show Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) member Alex Zammit received a written guarantee from PA chairman Martin Saliba in May 2020.
Zammit, at the time a PA employee, was assured by Saliba he could return to a job in the same grade, inclusive of any pay increments he receives during his time at the EPRT.
A familiar situation
According to the law establishing the tribunal, the appeals body is supposed to be an “independent and impartial tribunal” whose remit is to preside over appeals filed against decisions taken by the PA and the Environment Resources Authority.
Saliba, a former EPRT chairman, is no stranger to such deals, having benefitted from a similar arrangement with the PA himself during his stint chairing the tribunal.
Furthermore, Saliba’s replacement as tribunal chairman, Joe Borg, took up the position while being an authority employee on unpaid leave.
A spokesman for the PA said the May 2020 job guarantee given to Zammit upon joining the EPRT as an "officer" was terminated a year later, once he became a member of the tribunal.
The agreement ensuring that Zammit can return to the PA after three years at the EPRT."When in September 2021, the PA informed JobsPlus that it had terminated Mr Alex Zammit’s employment, then automatically, the agreement that the authority had with Alex Zammit (signed back in May 2020 when he took up the post as an officer within the EPRT) for unpaid leave became obsolete," the spokesman said.
Speaking to Times of Malta, veteran architect Alex Torpiano questioned how the EPRT can even pretend to be independent with such arrangements in place.
Speaking to Times of Malta, veteran architect Alex Torpiano questioned how the EPRT can even pretend to be independent with such arrangements in place
“The whole point of an independent tribunal was to have people on it who do not form part of the PA, seeing how the EPRT deals with appeals about the authority.
“It is sophism to say they are not being paid by the PA, as they know once their EPRT term ends, they can go back to the authority,” Torpiano said.
Zammit did not respond to a request for comment.
Claire Bonello, an experienced lawyer in planning appeals, said Zammit’s arrangement is a clear conflict of interest.
“From the reading of the agreement, it seems to be a case of the PA retaining a post within its ranks for the same person who is ruling on appeals to which the PA is a party,” Bonello said.
The lawyer said it is no wonder that NGOs and third-party objectors feel the whole PA and appeals process is rigged against them.
“The PA signs secret agreements with its employees, promising to give them their job back after their stint on the appeals tribunal.
“In no forum is that acceptable, it is unfair and continues to deepen suspicions about the lack of transparency and impartiality of the tribunal,” Bonello said.