Carmel Cacopardo, who is being refused so far a re-appointment as investigative officer at the audit office of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, referred yesterday to comments by Andrew Calleja, chairman of MEPA, that the problem in his re-appointment was a conflict of interest because of his comments about the appointment of a director for the protection of the environment.

Mr Cacopardo said this was not true. His letter to the Malta Independent about the appointment of the director was published on 5 October, 2006, but Mr Calleja had already declared at the beginning of April, 2006, that he did not want to renew Mr Cacopardo's contract. This was six months before his letter, Mr Cacopardo said. At the time, the call for applications for a director for the protection of the environmment was still open.

A letter dated 11 April, 2006, sent by the Audit Officer to Environment Minister George Pullicino, referred to a meeting on 7 April. The letter made clear that Audit Officer Joe Falzon was informed by Mr Pullicino that instructions had been given to MEPA that Mr Cacopardo's contract would not be renewed. It was only after Mr Falzon declared that in those circumstances he would resign, that the MEPA renewed Mr Cacopardo's contract on 28 April, 2006, on the day it expired.

His letter to the Independent on 5 October, 2005 was substantially the same as his submission to the Ombudsman to investigate the whole process of the selection of a director for the protection of the environment. Mr Cacopardo said he understood the MEPA was irritated that he had contested its decision about the selection. But to consider this contestation as a disqualification on his contract's renewal was absurd, Mr Cacopardo said.

Mr Cacopardo added he noted that the MEPA chairman was now distancing himself from the other reasons he had given against his contract's renewal, which were that he had written an article critical of MEPA, and that he had conducted an Alternattiva Demokratika meeting which discussed the reforms necessary at MEPA.

Although this was positive, in that it showed that MEPA itself was now realising that it was wrong, it did not weaken Andrew Calleja's responsibility to withdraw what had been said in a letter released to the media on 16 July.

Mr Cacopardo added he was also expecting the MEPA to withdraw also the latest reason on which it was insisiting. It could do this if it realised that this was the year 2007, Mr Cacopardo said. What it all showed was that Mr Calleja had never found anything to criticise in his work as investigative officer, and that he was continually fishing for pretexts to justify a decision taken 16 months ago.