The Ombudsman yesterday ruled that the audit officer at the Malta Environment and Planning Authority is entitled to distribute his findings and reports to third parties rather than solely to the Mepa board of directors.

The Ombudsman issued his report after Joe Falzon, Mepa’s audit officer, requested his advice on a matter of principle of good administration. The matter was raised when Mr Falzon’s report on the authority, in which he found that a senior public officer had acted incorrectly, was forwarded to the prime minister.

The Mepa board complained about this and said that according to the Development Planning Act, the audit officer should only transmit copies of his report to the Mepa board.

In a decision handed down yesterday, Ombudsman and Chief Justice Emeritus Joseph Said Pullicino said that Mepa incorrectly interpreted section 17C(3) of the Development Planning Act and that the audit office is entitled to give a copy of his report or part of it to those interested people who he thinks have a right to it.

Mepa’s position was that “…the Audit Officer (should) transmit a copy of all reports drawn up by him specifically and explicitly to the board of the authority. The distribution and/or circulation of (his) reports to anyone else, be it a ministry, agency of government, the complainant or other parties, is in breach of the law”.

But Mr Falzon disagreed with this interpretation of the section of the act. He maintained that “…according to the act, I must hand a copy of the report to Mepa but it does not preclude me from handing the report to other interested parties, in particular the complainants”.

The audit officer continues: “The Development Planning Act does not exclude other avenues through which audit reports can be communicated. This course of action, while not excluded by the Development Planning Act, is also dictated by common sense and by good administration. It is inconceivable how Mepa has the audacity to demand that complainants are not informed of the conclusions of investigations carried out as a result of their complaints.

“I also consider that it is necessary to inform other people or bodies whenever the need for this arises. In the case under examination, in view of the fact that a senior public officer had, in my view, acted incorrectly, I considered it appropriate to draw the attention of the prime minister to the issue in order that he would consider whether to initiate any action on his part as a result of the audit report. It is incomprehensible how Mepa should consider it necessary to shield abusive/inappropriate action of public officers by trying to obstruct the communication of a report to who has the authority to act.”

The Ombudsman said that an investigation carried out by the audit officer into a complaint made by a citizen directly affects his or her rights or interests. There can be no doubt, he said, that a complainant submitting a case before the audit officer has the right to be informed on the outcome of the investigation.

“It is imperative that this process remains an open and transparent one and that the workings of the authority, within its functions, are subjected to the scrutiny and judgement of public opinion. Mepa’s interpretation of this section of its law reduces this democratic process inherent in good public administration to a secretive and negative one. I am therefore of the opinion that Mepa’s interpretation of section 17C of the Planning Development Act is erroneous at law and that the Audit Officer is entitled to give a copy of his report or part of it, as he deems appropriate, to those interested persons who, in his opinion, have a right to it, foremost among them the complainant/s,” the Ombudsman concluded.