The former members of the Malta Enterprise Investment Committee said that it had approved a one-storey workshop, not a five-floor factory “as was incorrectly stated” in the conclusion of the Jean Paul Sofia public inquiry.

In a statement issued Saturday, the former committee members said no mention of the applicant’s serious criminal record was ever made in the due diligence section of the report presented to the Investment Committee and no matter of concern, of whatever nature, was ever flagged.

The statement was issued by Peter Borg, Frank Farrugia, Paul Abela, Victor Carachi and Dana Farrugia, after the publication of the Jean Paul Sofia Public Inquiry Report. They said that none of them had been called to testify to “clarify inaccuracies”.

It follows the publication of the report drawn up by the board of inquiry that looked into the death of Jean Paul Sofia after a building under construction collapsed in Kordin on 3 December, 2022.

In their statement, the former members said the Investment Committee at Malta Enterprise is essentially composed of people with competence in business matters and investment with some members appointed by the constituted bodies and others by government. Its purpose was specifically to assist small businesses looking to expand, or small start-ups with good potential for success, they said.

Since the Committee's inception, proposals were always assessed on whether the proposed projects had a reasonably good chance of business success, and in the absence of any red flags, the allocation of industrial space would be approved.

The industrial space itself would be granted by Indis, which is responsible for industrial estates and the allocation of public land for industrial use. Given the shortage of industrial space, the waiting period between the approval and the land actually being granted is usually several years, the statement said.

The documentation prepared by Malta Enterprise staff concerning the application in question was presented to the Investment Committee on 27 May 2019. The proposal indicated that the applicants were a start-up involved in the manufacture of high-end furniture and that the application was related to this economic activity.

In its assessment, Malta Enterprise management reported that the application satisfied the required criteria, prospects were good, that bank references were in order, due diligence had been carried out, and the applicants were compliant. No mention of a criminal record was ever made and no matter of concern, of whatever nature, was ever flagged, the statement said.

The Malta Enterprise management recommended the allocation of 300m2 of land for the construction of a “workshop”, which would create new employment for 5 full-time employees. It indicated that 250m2 would be used for “Production/Operations”, 25m2 for “Warehouse/Storage” and 25m2 for “Admin/Offices”, giving a total of 300m2 .

This is what the Investment Committee approved. A workshop of 300 m2 on one floor and nothing more, the statement said.

“ We wish to make it absolutely clear that at no point did the Investment Committee approve a five-floor factory, and that once the Investment Committee had approved the allocation proposed by Malta Enterprise management, its role in this matter, as in every other proposal, terminated. The Investment Committee’s role is to approve proposals for industrial aid, not to supervise its use. That task falls within the remit of other bodies,” they said.

The budget of €262,500, partly financed by a bank loan, at 2019 prices would have been sufficient for the construction of a 300m2 workshop at ground floor level. Apart from Malta Enterprise management’s recommendations, the Investment Committee took into account the fact that prospects for the furniture industry were at the time (and indeed remain today) quite favourable, they said.

Since no member of the Investment Committee was ever asked by the Public Inquiry to testify or supply information or documents, we were not in a position to clarify these matters. As a result, we were censured by the Board for having handled this case in a “superficial” manner, without ever having been heard as the dictates of natural justice require, the former members said.

“We believe that, in the light of the above facts, the conclusion that our intervention in this matter was, in any way whatsoever, superficial is with, all due respect, unwarranted and incorrect. Finally, we want to highlight the fact that the conclusion of the Inquiry Board that we acted in a “superficial” manner affects our right to enjoy a good reputation within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. We reserve all our rights in this regard.”