Dr Victor Scerri's resignation as Nationalist Party president is undoubtedly the news of the day. But all must be careful of making impromptu emotional judgements, such as many made in the days before the 2008 election on the JPO case; a case which presents many similarities to this one.

Many have expressed admiration at Dr Scerri's decision to resign. Maybe they are right. While this is a country where one blog may be filled with tendentious comments, and even after taking all the possible convolutions into consideration, many people are expressing admiration that Dr Scerri found the moral courage to tender his resignation in a country where the 'culture of resignations' is rather rare.

That and the tone of high moral outrage in his Tuesday night statement impressed many. He has chosen to fight his development battle outside of political office so that he will in no way be tainted by any form of political pressure in the continuation of his case.

But before we rush into judgement, whether positive or negative, let us consider some alternatives.

Dr Scerri has chosen to relinquish political office and fight it out as an ordinary citizen. That is one reading... his reading, of his decision.

But there may be an alternative reading too. In a choice between political office and a dubious development, he has chosen the latter. Could it have been possible for him to relinquish his dream of a house in the valley and keep his political career intact? Certainly, he could, at least seen from the outside. That he chose alternatively is the way he saw things.

The whole issue of Dr Scerri's resignation cannot be considered in a vacuum, as if it regarded some far-away country. The whole issue regards an application (or rather four successive ones) to develop (or rather pull down) an old dilapidated farmhouse in a scenic place, the Bahrija valley, which is now declared a Special Area of Conservation. Four times Dr Scerri was faced with a refusal, yet four times the Development Control Commission overturned the refusal recommendation.

In his resignation announcement on Tuesday, Dr Scerri fulminated against unspecified organizations and people who, he said, turned the debate into a non-objective one, with no respect for facts and legal procedure. He also said his position within the party was brought to bear as if to sustain the impression that politicians can get whatever they want, while Joe Public cannot.

Maybe that was so, but maybe too the people who gathered in the Bahrija Valley some weeks ago were not all blind or partisan. It is true that when an issue becomes national news the exact dimensions of who said what, who did what, etc tend to become blurred. But maybe that too is the way in which society works. Ultimately, truth will out and wrong perceptions and impressions may be corrected. Also true is that in such circumstances personal details tend to get let out to colour the issue when they are immaterial.

But what is the alternative? Is society to turn a deaf ear to NGOs and their valuable work in defence of our dilapidated natural environment? To describe public opinion as a kangaroo court (Dr Scerri, it must be stated, did not imply anything of the sort) is an insult to civil democratic society. Yes, it is true that the legal procedures must be allowed the time to run their course. Yes, it is also true that public comment must be based on fact and not hearsay or worse still, partisan spin. But when an issue becomes a public one there are ways and ways of reacting to it. Reacting by claiming a set-up and a travesty of justice can be interpreted as cries of hurt and anger by the 'victim of public interest' but such reactions must be corrected, also in the interest of the 'victim' himself.

The Auditor's report was published by the government yesterday. Within two minutes, the press had Dr Scerri's reaction of sorts, though he said a copy had not yet been sent to him. One has to ask whether Dr Scerri's sudden announcement on Tuesday had any link to the impending publication of the Auditor's report. Whatever...

Dr Scerri says he is considering taking legal action over parts of the report, as is his full right. But other than the bits that seem, in his mind, incriminating, the report is damning enough.

The permit should never have been issued. Earlier this week, Dr Scerri said that if someone else committed a mistake in the handling process of the application, he himself did no wrong. That may well be true, but Mepa is now to consider revoking the permit under the Article 39A of the Mepa Act.

If Dr Scerri is adamant in wanting the permit to remain, he may well have been right to resign from political office. Certainly too this resignation has wider implications. We mentioned JPO in the first paragraph and we mention him here. Dr Scerri preferred to keep his land and resign from political office. JPO kept his land, without permit, and kept his office. If Dr Scerri was right to do what he did, if one follows logic, JPO was wrong. You cannot hold on to your land and to your office...is that what the saga is telling us?

A person in high places, a politician, must think before doing. What is acceptable for an ordinary citizen is unacceptable to the public from a politician. Unless we accept this as the basis for society, we are still in the bad old 1980s. If you want to be the developer, get out of public office. Thank you Dr Scerri for showing us this so clearly. As we said earlier, there is still, if we may say so, an alternative: a politician must put his property in abeyance, as JPO had to eventually do after so many hard knocks.

On a final note, first JPO, now Victor Scerri. The writing on the wall does not look good for the Nationalist Party and for Dr Gonzi. If this is the pattern that we are set to follow, then maybe it is true that it is time for change. The foot has to come down and come down hard…