Earlier this week, the Planning and Environment Commissioner at the Ombudsman's office held that it is nobody's business as to whether or not the Planning Authority's Board members attend Board meetings: this is a matter for their exclusive concern. The provision of a jet plane to encourage and facilitate the attendance of Ms Jacqueline Gili at the PA Board meeting which considered and approved the dB monstrosity at Pembroke is thus considered as an undue interference and influence in the Planning Authority's operations.
The Planning Authority Executive Chairman Johann Buttigieg is on record as having taken responsibility for the decision to bring Ms Gili to Malta from Catania by air and facilitating her return to continue her interrupted family holiday. In a country where good governance is upheld, Mr Buttigieg would have resigned forthwith and, in the absence of such a resignation, he would have been fired on the spot as soon as information on the matter became public knowledge.
In addition one would also have had to deal with the fallout regarding the validity of the decision so taken as a result of such an undue interference.
It is, however, well known that the Planning Authority is incapable of reacting to such blatant bad governance. It is common knowledge that it lacks the proverbial balls, making it incapable of acting properly.
But we cannot realistically expect otherwise, because the appointees to public authorities mirror the behaviour of their political masters. We cannot expect accountability from the appointees if those who appoint them continuously try to wriggle out of shouldering their responsibilities. There are, of course, some exceptions.
The Panama Papers saga is recent enough. Instead of firing Minister Konrad Mizzi and his Chief of Staff Keith Schembri on the spot for setting up companies in the Central American tax-haven, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat acted as if nothing of significance ever happened. What could have happened - in addition to the setting-up of Mizzi's and Schembri's companies and the third mysterious one (Egrant) is not so far provable. This has been stated repeatedly by our Courts, although the relative decisions have been repeatedly misinterpreted as absolving various politically-exposed people (PEP) from any wrongdoing. Nothing could be further from the truth.
There is no doubt that, so far, there is an absence of proof indicating potential criminal liability. However, as a minimum, there is sufficient proof in the public domain pointing towards both errors of judgement and unethical behaviour which, on its own, is sufficient to justify immediate political sanctions.
This is not only applicable to all the PEP featuring in the Panama Papers saga. It is also applicable to other different scenarios across the political divide.
On a completely different level, I refer to the three reports by the Auditor-General concerning the political responsibilities of Jason Azzopardi, all three of which deal with the management of government-owned land. In all three cases, former Minister Jason Azzopardi was heavily censored. I remember when a senior civil servant testified during a sitting of Parliament's Public Accounts Committee in October 2017, in public session, that then Minister Azzopardi was aware of all the goings-on. Yet Jason Azzopardi sanctimoniously plays the idiot and feigns ignorance of what is going on around his desk.
As yet, the Opposition has not yet held him (and others) to account. The Opposition cannot expect to be taken seriously when it rightly censors others before it musters sufficient courage to put its own house in order.
Unfortunately, the political class currently in office is not capable of practising what it preaches. With such political parties, it is no wonder that this country has long gone to the dogs.