On 7 August 2025 - in the peak of the summer holidays - government announced a belated second round of consultation - this time a public one - on the two development-planning-law-related bills published on 25 July 2025 in the Government Gazette. The purpose of these bills was to align Maltese Law with developers' wish list. Nothing will stop government to efficiently appease the developers.

This notwithstanding, government failed to pass these bills swiftly in the House of Representatives as mischievously planned. It gave no prior notice to the public before the second reading as to the bills' contents. From government's perspective, it should have been an expedited law approval procedure. Through this deceitful strategy, government aimed within the few remaining days before the House enjoyed its summer recess, to fast track the enactment of the bills. This strategy failed miserably due to the promptness of public-spirited civil society organisations who were probably anticipating such underhand move by government. Contrary to government that has and continues to primarily have - public consultation exercise notwithstanding - developers' interests at heart, these public-spirited organisations are solely motivated by the common good of society, including the preservation of the environment, and not by private interests, selfish greed, underhand agreements, and piggying gains.

All this haste to see these bills enacted into law speedily with no possibility of serious public consultation and debate taking place, except - of course - with developers, caught Maltese society by surprise for nobody would have thought that in the holiday period government would be conspiring in secret talks with only one stakeholder and publishing two environmentally-devastating bills. Thanks to the public consultation notice, it emerged that three legal notices had already been drafted so that after parliamentary approval of the two bills, during the summer period, all forms of illegal development under the sun would be regularised. In so far as government was concerned, there was only Parliament's rubber stamp left to complete the whole legislative process to transform Malta into a developers' paradise so that the latter can live happily ever after.

But things did not work out for government as pre-planned. Now that it has been caught red handed, its strategy dented, and with a finger in the pie, it is resorting to face saving measures whilst still hoping that the environment and rule of law destructive bills sail to port unscathed. But like St Paul, government's ship ended up shipwrecked with the difference, however, that government - contrary to St Paul - did not emerge from the shipwreck with the little reputation that it still enjoyed untarnished.

Why is this public consultation exercise a fake exercise in public consultation?

First, because it is a knee-jerk reaction to the adverse publicity that lambasted government's pro-development, anti-environment, and anti-rule of law bills. Government thought that civil society organisations would be unaware of its attempt to enact the two laws in question as swiftly as possible and with no public consultation at all, except with developers who were privy to, and acquiesced to, government's proposed changes to the planning laws. For government, the first round of public consultation was conducted only with one and only one very special stakeholder; the rest of Maltese society was totally and completely irrelevant. It was not, and never had been, on government's agenda to consult widely because to do so would reveal the environmentally disastrous and rule of law infringing provisions in the two bills, uncover government's hypocrisy when claiming to be a defender of the environment, unravel black on white that the bills were simply intended for private gain (surely not for the common good of society or for environmental protection), and would have disclosed that the environment was there to be pillaged and the rule of law derided in the interest of the anointed few.

Second, because reading through DOI PR 251413 dated 7 August 2025, it transpires loudly and clearly that there is not even one single expert sitting on the government-appointed working group entrusted with reviewing the two bills, holding discussions with stakeholders and possibly others, and chartering the course for future action on development planning. The working group's composition - when one studies its membership - is more akin to a Cabinet Committee than a working group.

One asks: why has not one development planning expert been appointed on the working group? The answer is obvious. Government is not interested to consult properly - to undertake a serious, objective, professional, and unbiased public consultation exercise. Government is interested only in getting its way at all costs; and what is the most effective way to do so? ... To appoint only ministers and government employees on the working group who have no independent mind of their own, who can be easily manipulated and instructed what to do, who - in full and loyal gratitude know their appointment only to the Prime Minister, who lack independence and impartiality of judgment, and whose career / political future is entirely dependent on the whims and caprice of their puppet master.

These members are all conscious that if they were to transgress and fail to obey directives received from Castille - mainly requesting them not to change anything in the bills - their heads will roll, more so than an election is looming ahead probably early next year after the best budget in Malta's history is approved in December 2025. Now these ministerial members cannot afford a head-on collision with the Prime Minister as they might see their candidature for the next general election refused or their government appointment rescinded. Can these persons, therefore, due to their lack of expertise in development planning and impeccable loyalty to government be entrusted with deciding the future of development planning laws in Malta? More so when these members have no inkling of development planning, development planning law, protection of the cultural heritage, and, more importantly, do not have the public interest at heart. They are there only to appease at all costs developers who will soon be called to finance their political party machinery, support general election costs, and place ministerial committee members in a position of indebtedness to their sponsors? Even if all this comes to the detriment of the environment and the rule of law. But political expediency comes first before the common good of society.

Why has not the Department of Information, in the press release announcing the establishment of the working group, published the curriculum vitae of working group members so that the public can gauge and realise their flawed credentials and lack of expertise on matters concerning planning, planning law, and related matters? The reply is obvious. They have none. That is why, probably, the Prime Minister considers them the ideal members to sit on this working group: he knows they will do as instructed from above. After all, the chair of this working group is none other than the longa manus of the Prime Minister through whom the latter controls the working group. Will a sheepish minister and/or a servile government employee amass the strength to be bold enough to say 'no' to the Prime Minister?

Third, because government - secretly - has already carried out a consultation exercise only with developers before the approval of the two bills by cabinet and the parliamentary group and before the publication of the two bills in question. The purpose at the pre-parliamentary stage was not to widen the public consultation exercise; on the contrary, it was deliberately not intended to raise any alarm bells: government hoped that nobody would notice how it was going to handle the situation. Nevertheless, this measure back fired and government was caught with its pants down, with egg on its face, and is now having recourse to what is nothing more and nothing less than a face-saving measure to hide its deceit.

Fourth, prior to the publication of the two bills, government even hid its intention of regularising practically all illegal development under the sun instead of enforcing development planning law as it is proposing to do in the legal notices published in the DOI PR announcing the fake public consultation exercise. Three draft legal notices have been published titled: (a) 'Concession Regulations in Respect of Existing Illegal Development'; (b) 'Regularisation of Existing Development Falling Within the Development Zone Regulations'; and (c) 'Regularisation of Existing Development not Located Within the Development Zone Regulations'. None of these legal notices protect the environment - they all authorise by law its destruction.

All forms of illegal development - within or outside the development zone and all existing illegal development wherever situated will soon become legal. Law enforcement has been turned on its head through the normalisation, glorification, and legalisation of illegality whilst at the same time deriding, humiliating, and ostracising law-abiding citizens who cannot reconcile why government is punishing them for obeying the law and not the law breakers.

Government's now typical response to breaches of the law is not law enforcement but the granting of amnesties, pardons, concessions, and regularisation of all forms of irregularities/illegalities to all those people who have defied and still continue to defy the law with impunity and shamelessly, and - ironically - with government's tacit approval. Instead of upholding the rule of law, that is, instead of enforcing development planning law, government proposes an amnesty from punishment and regularisation of all illegalities to all those persons who have transgressed the law. If you cannot beat them, join them, be complicit in the illegalities and absolve everybody of their guilt. This is the new government approved policy of law 'enforcement'. Quite progressive indeed!

What message does this new policy convey to law abiding citizens who respect and obey the law? Clearly that there is a law for the select few, the anointed ones, and another for the rest of society, the miserable unfortunate ones; the former unenforced, the latter enforced down their throat by hook or by crook. Through state capture by cabinet and parliamentary group, the institutions of the state have been neutralised: the Planning Authority is a case in point. It beats me whether, after the enactment of the bills and the making of the three legal notices, there will be anything that will be illegal under the planning law? Literally, the sky will now become the limit.

Fifth, the real motivation behind the public consultation exercise is not environment protection but an exercise in damage control and in face saving even though there is really no face to save: government's knee jerk public consultation reaction has been unmasked and has backfired. This can be immediately deduced from the excessively short (one-month) period - in the midst of the summer holidays - allowed for public consultation. If government were serious enough, it would extend that period to three months and ensure that the working group is made up of experts, not politicians and government employees, who would consult widely with all sectors of society. Contrast this one-month consultation period with the more generous and reasonable three-month consultation period that government is allowing for media reform (see the media reform public consultation document of 1 August 2025). Within the same month government announced two different public consultation periods, one of one month and one of three months. Quite consistent indeed!

In the case of media reform government is dragging its feet - it has no intention of doing anything about it prior to the next general election and the Daphne Caruana Assassination Board of Inquiry report of four years ago has remained totally unimplemented: the rule of law has no currency to government. But in the case of planning law, government wants to rush the consultation process and have it done away with as soon as possible before the House resumes on 15 September 2025 so that the two bills are approved before the electoral budget. After the latter is also approved government can dissolve parliament and call a general election more so that the opposition is in tatters and will afford government an easy walkover to get elected for a fourth consecutive time.

Sixth, the public consultation exercise is nothing but a farce dictated by greed and government's policy of piggying. Why has not government published any technical studies prepared by competent planners and experts in the field that advocate the enactment of the two bills and the three draft legal notices in question? The answer is obvious. None have been prepared. There is no back up documentation drawn by reputable planners and qualified experts. Why have no foreign experts in planning been requested to give advice to the government on the future of development planning in Malta? So that there would be no obstacles for a ministerial-developer take-over of the Planning Authority. For which expert in development planning, in his/her right senses would endorse these bills and draft legal notices that are a travesty of the fundamental principles of development planning, and that nip in the bud all that represents environmental justice? Why is it only the developers that have endorsed these bills and all the rest of society condemned them to oblivion?

Clearly, the public consultation exercise is a fake, masterminded by a government that has no inkling in protecting the environment but to see its destruction and making greedy people richer than they already are thanks to its policy of piggying. Sadly, the end loser of the public consultation exercise with an already decided outcome will always be the environment and the rule of law, with the latter being substituted by the rule of developers - the Cowboys Law.

Kevin Aquilina is Professor of Law at the Faculty of Laws of the University of Malta