Moviment Graffitti has strongly condemned the Planning Authority (PA) for refusing to disclose the identities of public officers preparing key reports, despite the Ombudsman’s clear recommendation that this practice must end.

The controversy stems from the PA’s decision to withhold the names of officers involved in preparing reports for Summary Applications.

A complaint lodged with the Ombudsman led to recommendations aimed at increasing transparency, including publicly identifying the decision-makers, conducting decision-making in public forums, and publishing the names of officers responsible for preparing recommendations.

The issue gained attention with the approval of application PA/2035/21, which sought to sanction part of Joseph Portelli’s controversial development in Sannat.

This development had previously been nullified by the Courts, rendering it ineligible for sanctioning. Despite this, the Case Officer’s report recommended approval, omitting the fact that the Courts had revoked the development.

Crucially, the report was published without naming the officer who authored it or the officer who endorsed it, leaving no accountability for what Moviment Graffitti described as a “blatantly illegal decision that made a mockery of the Courts.”

While the Ombudsman called for an end to this lack of transparency, the PA has openly refused to comply.

Citing vague reasons such as protecting officers from having their names published on news portals and social media, the PA signalled its intent to continue withholding identities, further eroding trust in its decision-making processes.

Moviment Graffitti pointed out that hiding the names of public officers involved in drafting and approving reports is part of a “rotten system” that shields developers from accountability.

The group referenced the illegal sanctioning of penthouses in Sannat, completed while an appeal was still underway, as an example of this systemic failure.

Despite promises of reform to the planning appeals law, little has been done, with other developers now attempting to sanction structures that have had permits revoked by the Courts.

The situation has been further exacerbated by the return of Johann Buttigieg, a figure with close ties to major developers, to lead the PA.

Moviment Graffitti argued that withholding the identities of public officers makes it increasingly difficult to ensure the integrity of the PA’s processes and raises serious concerns about conflicts of interest.

In their statement, Moviment Graffitti called on the PA to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations without delay and put an end to a system that undermines transparency, accountability, and the rule of law.

What do you make of this?