Former Parliamentary Secretary for Planning Michael Falzon this evening was grilled by the Public Accounts Committee about the Gaffarena expropriation deal.

The testimony of former Government Property Division (GPD) official Carmel Camilleri was heard last week. He had revealed, through an affidavit, how a former member of Michael Falzon's secretariat pressured him into rushing with Gaffarena's file and also gave the controversial businessman a free pass into the Lands Department building.

Michael Falzon told the Committee he never told Clint Scerri to speak on his behalf. He explained that it is Clint Scerri who has to answer questions about his position. Falzon explained that Scerri worked in customer care and worked with issues related to GDP. Clint Scerri was a scale 14 civil servant, he said.

PAC Chairman Tonio Fenech however clarified that no one assumed that Scerri's claims were a reflection of Falzon's.

"You are asking me to judge Clint Scerri's actions and I cannot do that. What I know is that I never interfered on what Scerri had to write. I don't know the architect who took care of the case and I did not choose him. I left the department to function without my interference."

He said that if the time allows it, he would be willing to say what he learned from all of this experience, but described the NAO report as a "political witch hunt".

Tonio Fenech quoted the NAO report when it speaks of collusion, "collusive action which was highly inappropriate". Falzon rebutted the 'collusive action' mentioned in the report. He said he signed a lot of expropriation documents and every time he acted according to the law.

The Committee Chairman said that the issue highlighted in the NAO report is that it was the private citizen who approached the government for expropriation, when it normally works the other way round. 

Michael Falzon explained that the property in Valletta is a palace with an enormous value. This property served as a school, an examination centre amongst others. He said that the 'public service' value cannot be contested as it served a lot of purposes which can be deemed as public.

"I never spoke to Marco Gaffarena on the value of the property," he said. "There were files which were concluded in six minutes. I will not mention the cases which occurred in the past. These were referred to the NAO, but somehow they were not concluded."

The former Parliamentary Secretary criticized the report for failing to dwell into the role of Joseph Spiteri, the architect who carried out the valuation of property. "This report is an ethical and professional blasphemy," he told the Committee.

Following this statement, Auditor General Charles Deguara, who was present at tonight's session, said he was open to criticism but rejected claims by Falzon that this report was somehow politically motivated.

Tonio Fenech asked why he failed to see if the property is too expensive or not. "Do not ask me on the value of the land. Ask the architect about that," Michael Falzon replied.

But Fenech insisted that Falzon had to make sure that the value set by the architect is realistic or not. "Didn't you feel that you had to make a decision on the value of the property? You were not obliged to do so, but maybe you could have looked into the valuation and decide if it was too expensive or not. The question is not the value itself. The question asked by the AG is based on the fact that the expropriation decision should be taken by the politician."

Michael Falzon however insisted that he did not want to interfere in the architects' final decision. "Should I have interfered, I would have been crucified like Saint Peter," he insisted.

Minister Owen Bonnici turned the questions to the AG Charles Deguara. He asked if the NAO ever investigated valuations by architect Joseph Spiteri and Deguara answered that the architect is involved in another investigation but the report is not yet concluded.

The debate climaxed to the issue of the word "collusion" used in the NAO report. "Does collusion mean that a politician simply signed an expropriation deal?" Michael Falzon told Charles Deguara.

Owen Bonnici asked the AG to clarify if there was collusion between Marco Gaffarena and Michael Falzon. "The collusion happened when the story was leaked to the media", Michael Falzon insisted. He accused one of the NAO officials of leaking documents to the media.  But Tonio Fenech insisted that the issue on how the documents got leaked should not be the subject of a PAC discussion. 

Nationalist MP Claudio Grech asked about Clint Scerri's role and if Falzon believes that the decision was done in the public's interest. He also asked Deguara if he thinks clear parameters should be introduced to define a 'public purpose'.

"Public purpose of this particular expropriation was decided by a civil servant. Are we saying that politicians should decide what is a public service or not?" Michael Falzon asked. 

AG Charles Deguara, when asked by Owen Bonnici, confirmed that the Prime Minister is never involved in the report. 

"I have every faith in the Office of the Auditor General. But it rings a bell why certain other cases are not being investigated. Can the AG confirm if before the Gaffarena case, he met with me where I indicated some individuals which were being politically motivated?"

The Auditor General confirmed and said that he will never allow his office to be used by political motivations. 

Marco Gaffarena was given €1.65 million in cash and land in exchange for the expropriation of his share of the Old Mint Street property. It was also claimed that the properties he was given were severely undervalued, which means that the real value of the package he was given was much greater. The scandal led to the resignation of Michael Falzon, following a damning NAO report which found that the interests of the government were not safeguarded and how Gaffarena was privy to confidential information.