Legal experts have contested Deborah Schembri's proposal to have a set definition of when government can expropriate private land.
The issue comes down to the legal term of "public purpose", which comes into play when the government needs to expropriate private land to embark on a national project such as a much needed arterial road, or a hospital, for example.
Newly appointed Parliamentary Secretary Deborah Schembri told our sister newspaper The Malta Independent on Sunday that she wants to have a set definition of what constitutes "public purpose". But legal experts said that what might be a clear definition today, might no longer be relevant or applicable in the future.
Dr Schembri explained she would avoid another Gaffarena scandal by having a clear definition of what is a public purpose and by creating the necessary guidelines for land valuation.
By researching court sentences, however, an anomaly comes in, as it is in fact the Maltese courts which have defined what a "public purpose" is for the last 90 years.
Legal experts who spoke to this newspaper explained that public purpose cannot be defined and remain unchanged for the future.
"How can we define what a public purpose is now, for an expropriation case which will come up in five years' time? A public purpose cannot be of a permanent nature because circumstances can change."
The issue of public purpose definition was raised in a court sentence handed by Judges Joseph Said Pullicino, Carmel Agius and Guiseppe Mifsud Bonnici back in 1993 in a case regarding land expropriated from the Government which was given to a local band club by ground rent.
In a separate case, Judge Joseph Micallef's sentence had defined public purpose as the "collective interest in contrast with the interest of an individual". It was ruled that a property can be expropriated from an individual if the public interest is really observed.
Dr Schembri also mentioned the introduction of the right for a judicial review to be able to contest a government decision on land expropriation.
This, however, has already been introduced in 2009, when the government at the time, had presented amendments to the Land Acquisitions (Public Purposes) Ordinance.
Asked to react about this, Dr Schembri said there are two laws which outline the right for a judicial review. She did not explain the difference between the two but said the one introduced by the Nationalist Government in 2009 was not the same as the one which the Prime Minister is quoting in the case against Marco Gaffarena.
"It's true, the amendment introduced in 2009 allows for a judicial review, but the law must be better defined and the judicial remit should be widened. I feel that the definition that exists now leaves room for abuse", she said.
from The Malta Independent http://ift.tt/1RXvbJ4
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment