The use of direct orders is, of course, necessary in certain situations. One example that comes to mind would be in the case of emergency works in order to ensure that a road is structurally sound should damage have been observed for instance.

Generally speaking, a direct order would be justifiable when no applications have been submitted in response to an open procedure, when the services - for artistic or technical reasons - can only be provided by a particular supplier, and when the works are deemed to be an emergency in nature.

But the sheer high amount of direct orders dished out by Infrastructure Malta in 2025 raises many questions. The Malta Independent on Sunday analysed the data from Infrastructure Malta published in the government gazette for direct orders in 2025. It transpires that it spent a whopping €53 million in direct orders. The agency handed out a total of 116 direct orders between 1 July 2025 and 31 December 2025 worth €16.55 million. In the first half of 2025, it dished out 145 direct orders worth a total of €36.46 million.

Unlike a tender, a direct order is given by the authority directly to a company. This, without a competitive process.

From the criteria one would generally consider acceptable for a direct order, one can easily question why a whopping €6 million direct order was given to contractors Elbros Construction Ltd for the reconstruction of the Ħal-Far Drag Racing Strip, including its containment walls, for homologation - work which Infrastructure Malta was commissioning on behalf of Sport Malta. Why wasn't this subject to a competitive tender process?. ADPD has, rightly, filed a request for the Auditor General to investigate.

There were direct orders given for road works, such as one worth €2.2 million given for road works in Triq ta' Bur il-Kbir in Siġġiewi - a country road which the agency is widening to two lanes. Was a direct order really required for road widening works?

In a statement back in November last year regarding an unrelated entity, the Malta Chamber of Commerce had highlighted its call for public procurement reform. Among the key reforms it had been calling for was stronger scrutiny of direct orders and contract variations, with full documentation and justification, as well as effective remedies against any abusive practices.

As said at the beginning of this editorial, direct orders are necessary in certain situations. But when such hefty sums are being mentioned it begins to raise eyebrows. There should be stricter checks and balances, more accountability, more transparency and detailed explanations made public on the government gazette as to why such works had to be done via direct order, and not through a competitive process. These are, after all, public funds being used.