In 2017, the Planning Authority issued a dangerous structure permit to Enemalta to demolish the ex-NAAFI (or ex-Sea Malta) building, which had been previously allocated as part of Enemalta’s built assets.

Enemalta based their request for this permission on the alleged existence of a structural engineer’s report that advised the building should be demolished because of the dangerous state it was in.

The PA blindly took Enemalta’s word for it and, without undertaking its own verifications, as required by law, issued the permit.

The country found out about this permission to demolish a fine example of modernist architecture when bulldozers were observed on site.

At that time, the Kamra tal-Periti alerted the superintendence of cultural heritage, which rushed to save the front part of the building and its iconic clock-tower. The rest was gone.

Upon investigation, and multiple requests for information that were initially met with resistance, the Kamra tal-Periti found out that there was no technical report that said the building had to be demolished.

In any case, the legislation which deals with dangerous structures specifically allows the removal of any immediate danger, such as by propping, but not wholesale demolition, and only after inspection by a professional engaged by the authority.

The Kamra formally requested the PA to withdraw the permit. When it refused, the case was referred to the ombudsman, who decided, in December 2017, that the PA had indeed acted in breach of the relative law and recommended the annulment of the permit.

In January 2018, the PA’s executive council voted to ignore the recommendations of the ombudsman.

In March 2018, the Kamra tal-Periti, together with Din l-Art Ħelwa and Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar, decided to share the costs of filing a case (yes, these actions cost money) asking the court to declare that the PA had breached the law and that the permit issued was null and void.

After more than four years, of the PA and Enemalta dragging their feet throughout the process, on November 4, 2022, the court decided that the PA’s permit issued on October 2017 was indeed ultra vires and was therefore null and void – all the work undertaken by Enemalta in 2017 was illegal.

This decision vindicates the NGOs that immediately decried the demolition of a modernist icon of architecture.

At the very least, we would expect the PA and Enemalta to issue an apology to the people of Malta

It is also notable because it declares that two public entities, one of which has the specific duty of taking decisions to protect our built heritage, acted illegally and, as a result, permanently disfigured two-thirds of a building, which belongs to Malta’s legacy, that is, our legacy.

The judge specifically slammed the authority for having rejected the recommendations of the ombudsman and for failing to acknowledge their error – if error it was – as a result of which a four-year case in court had to ensue.

It is, of course, too late to recover the demolished part of the building. We presume that the demolished volume will be rebuilt in some form, at some stage, but the original is gone forever.

It is also not a case of the entities, which brought on the case, to ask for compensation,  although the judge strongly rejected the objections made by both the PA and Enemalta that the said NGOs had no juridical interest in the case. If nothing else, this decision makes it firmly clear that NGOs have the right to challenge this type of decisions by public authorities without every time having to prove a juridical interest in the narrow sense of the law.

So, what now? At the very least, we would expect the PA and Enemalta to issue an apology, not to us but to the people of Malta for having broken the law (the PA’s own law) and, consequently, seriously damaged a piece of our heritage.

We would also expect that the government will not allow Enemalta to benefit from the piece of real estate that they created – illegally – to exploit. It would be like allowing a criminal to enjoy the spoils of his crime.

We would expect the government to pressure Enemalta to give up this asset – since they have proved incapable of properly looking after it – and give it back to the community.

We would expect the government to censure those members of the PA executive council who voted to ignore the ombudsman.

No public entity should be allowed to break the law and carry on as if nothing has happened. If public entities behave like this, who can blame private developers for doing the same?

This is the moment for the government to prove its intent to really uphold the rule of law in matters related to the environment and built heritage.

Finally, we would like to acknowledge Claire Bonello’s help with this case.

Alex Torpiano is representing Din l-Art Ħelwa, Andre Pizzuto, Kamra tal-Periti and Jörg Sicot, Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar.