GUEST POST: Government dropped eviction case against Cities Entertainment BEFORE it concluded negotiations

This is a guest post by T. Borg.

Things are not quite right with the court cases to evict Cities Entertainment Ltd. The cases were withdrawn in June and July 2013 (NAO report, page 72) – well before negotiations had been concluded. Why did government not wait until conclusions of the negotiations and approval by Cabinet? What if the negotiations fell through? Or had Muscat decided that, no matter what, the buy-back will happen?

The NAO expresses concern that it could not find proper documentation as to why the cases were withdrawn. In the absence of documentation, it tried to establish reasons via interviews but did not get very far either. The reason given in court was that agreement had been reached between the two parties. The NAO questions this.

There had not been agreement on the buy-back at that stage, nor was there satisfactory payment of the rents due by Cities Entertainment. I would argue that the only possible explanation for the withdrawal of the court cases were verbal instructions to the Lands Legal Officer from someone at the Office of the Prime Minister, or from the principal permanent secretary himself. This is potentially another instance where the Office of the Prime Minister bypassed the Commissioner of Lands.

The cabinet was misled in its meeting of 10 September 2013. Cabinet was not informed that Cities Entertainment had breached the conditions of contract and that there were sufficient grounds for legal proceedings for its rescission. There was no reference at all to the court cases in the memo to the cabinet, published in the NAO report, much less to their withdrawal. This is vital information, because the Cabinet was made to believe that the buy-back of the lease was the only available option.

Joseph Muscat first eradicated the most viable alternative to the buy-back and then failed to inform his cabinet colleagues about it. Why? To ensure that the buy-back route will not be questioned or meet with obstacles. It is extraordinary that his cabinet colleagues would stand for this. If he is lying to them about this significant matter that has ended up in the news as a scandal, then what else might he be lying about to them.

On the matter of the fire risk, Cabinet was offered an incomplete picture. The memo gives the fire risk to the National Library as one of the reasons of the buyback but does not specify that the lease contract prohibits the use of gas cylinders. The NAO report points out that there were other alternatives available to reduce fire risk other than buy back. Needless to say there is no hint of alternatives in the Cabinet memo.