The way Daphne Caruana Galizia lambasted Astrid Vella is indeed disgraceful (TMIS, 15 February). Astrid deserves praise not only for the stand she has been taking over the years in support of preserving Malta’s heritage but also for having brought to light the opinions expressed by various heritage experts against the St John’s Cathedral project proposed by the Cathedral Foundation.

The foundation has not given any reasons for ignoring the views of experts. Worse still is the fact that they themselves did not feel the need to mention these reservations in the foundation’s public statements on their proposed project. One can only conclude that the foundation members were afraid of the impact on Mepa and on public opinion of the adverse opinions already expressed by experts.

In their defence, foundation members and their supporters maintain that a decision to abort the project should not have been taken by Prime Minister Gonzi and Archbishop Cremona before the result of the EIA was known. This is a lame excuse as these heads of the State and of the Church are the “stakeholders” and not the foundation.

Indeed, a point that does not seem to have been given any importance by the foundation’s board is that they have no right, without the prior approval of the “stakeholders”, to enter into a project involving such an intrusive underground and overhead structure in the cathedral’s grounds and, in the process, disturbing hallowed burial grounds.

Surely the foundation acted beyond its powers to “administer” the church and museum and to be responsible for its “management”. This is the crux of the matter and not the smokescreen put up by the foundation’s board that the proper procedure was to wait for the result of an EIA.

One can understand why Astrid Vella called for the resignation of all the foundation’s members. This, in my opinion, smacks too much of revenge but certainly this unsavoury matter calls for a re-think on the part of both government and the Church as to the credibility of their representatives on the foundation’s board. It would be a pity to lose the services of all the board members – most of whom, clearly, have given very valuable service – but surely there are sufficient grounds for some heads to roll.

Anthony R. Curmi

ST JULIAN’S