Years Of Delays Cited

The company traced the source of delays as far back as its early work on the Tigné Point site, where a last-minute government order to preserve the Garden Battery forced a complete redesign and reapplication process. That redesign, submitted in 2005, was not approved until 2012.

For Manoel Island, active planning efforts only began in earnest in 2013 after the government gave formal direction on how to proceed, Portelli said. He added that between 2009 and 2012, the project had been frozen while a steering committee evaluated alternative visions for the island.

MIDI said it submitted a revised masterplan in 2017 after archaeological risks were flagged. The company said it complied with five years of evaluations, which ultimately resulted in over 22,000 square metres being removed from the developable area due to the discovery of historical remains. A new masterplan was submitted in early 2021 and approved in September that year, but was later subjected to a legal appeal that wasn’t concluded until May 2023.

The AGM heard how MIDI was on track to secure a full development permit in March 2024, but the process was once again halted when the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage requested a Heritage Impact Assessment to ensure the development would not affect Valletta’s World Heritage status. That process remains ongoing.

The company’s chairman reiterated that it considers itself fully compliant with the original concession terms and that the ten-year extension is not a matter of goodwill but a contractual right.

However, in a carefully worded closing remark, the chairman said that MIDI recognises the government’s intention to convert Manoel Island into a national park and is “committed to continue to act in good faith” to facilitate a resolution.

A Sudden Political Change of Heart

The AGM comes just days after Prime Minister Robert Abela launched a legal challenge against MIDI, accusing the company of breaching its contract by failing to complete the project on time. The move followed mounting public pressure, including a petition backed by almost 30,000 signatories and a letter signed by over 260 academics calling for the island to be returned to the public.

Until recently, the Prime Minister had appeared to support the project, or at least showed no signs of blocking it. His abrupt shift in tone – from calling the project beneficial to threatening legal action – has raised questions about what prompted the turnaround.

Whether it was mounting public pressure, an attempt to neutralise a growing environmental campaign, or a more calculated effort to seize political momentum and recast himself as a defender of public land, the political reasoning behind the Prime Minister’s sudden intervention remains unclear.

What is clear, however, is that the legal battle may not be as straightforward as first presented. Only weeks ago, the government’s position was that the project would go ahead. There was “no chance” it would be stopped. Then came the petition, the public backlash, and within days, everything was suddenly back on the table – except, crucially, the one option Prime Minister Robert Abela himself had ruled out just weeks earlier: paying the developers to walk away.

Abela now says an agreement has been reached in principle for the island to return to public hands. But there has been no transparency about what that agreement involves. What we do know is that MIDI has not conceded it is in breach of contract – on the contrary, it insists it has a solid legal case and a right to continue the project. And yet, it has agreed to negotiate its own exit.

The sudden reversal suggests that Abela has strongarmed the consortium into backing down. Quite what leverage he has used to achieve that is unclear, and perhaps deliberately so. The final shape of this deal remains to be seen.

Will the government buy back the land at a discounted rate? Will it offer some other form of compensation, or restructure the concession in a way that preserves shareholder value while satisfying public sentiment? Or will it attempt a full handover of the land – an outcome that, given MIDI’s public company status and fiduciary responsibilities, seems implausible without a significant payout?

When the petition was first gathering steam, Abela warned that halting the project would cost the country millions in compensation. Presumably, that remains MIDI’s preferred scenario. Whether the government is prepared to meet that price – or whether MIDI will sue if it doesn’t – could define not just the future of Manoel Island, but the limits of what political willpower alone can achieve when contracts, capital, and public land collide.