Editorial | Why the court’s decision on the DB project matters

A court ruling on Wednesday that declared the planning permit for the DB Group project in St George’s Bay null and void should serve as a wakeup call.

The court’s decision was not based on the planning merits of the massive project on the site of the former tourism school in St Julians.

The DB Group project, in fact, went through a rigorous two-year Planning Authority screening process before the permit was issued in September. All the studies the group carried out were endorsed and in line with current regulations.

The PA board voted in favour of the project with a 10 to four majority.

Judge Mark Chetcuti ruled that the PA’s board decision had to be revoked because one of its members had a conflict of interest since he was involved with a real estate company that stood to benefit from the project.

The board member’s vote had been in favour of the project. The permit was approved by a 10-4 margin, which means that the singular vote deemed objectionable by the court would have made no real difference to the outcome.

However, the court’s ruling is a defence of the rule of law and must not be brushed aside.

Irrespective of whether people agree or not with the project, the court ruling is clear enough that the board decision was vitiated because of the conflict of interest.

The court also chided the Planning and Environment Review Tribunal for easily brushing aside the conflict of interest concern raised by opponents to the project.

While those who appealed against the project permit have claimed temporary victory, the true victory would be when authorities independent of the government function correctly.

The judgment casts a spotlight on certain appointments to key posts and the suitability of people chosen to occupy these roles.

Tackling conflict of interest, perceived or otherwise, in Malta may be problematic because of this country’s small size, where everyone knows everyone.

But at the very least, conflicts of interest, even if they are potential, should be declared from the outset.

If the PA board member declared his conflict and chose to stay out of the meeting on this particular project, none of this would have happened.

There have been occasions in the past when PA board members opted out of decisions in which they had an interest.

Situations like these must be regulated by procedures that are clear for everyone. Transparency pays because it ensures a regulatory level playing field for all.

It is in the interest of the business community to have authorities that function efficiently, transparently and act in a correct manner.

Having the rules in place is just the first step. Ensuring they are enforced is an important second step.

But there is also a third step that has to do with the integrity of the individual’s entrusted with important decisions.

Integrity cannot be enforced by law. It is defined by the values a person has. Striving to have people of integrity in key positions is crucial to minimise the temptations of wrongdoing.

This is especially true in the planning field because in a small country where land comes at a very high premium.

It is within this context that the court’s decision on the DB Group project takes on an important dimension that the authorities would do well to take note of.