No police investigation into Gaffarena expropriation deal

The police have not launched an investigation into a controversial expropriation deal involving a building in Old Mint Street because it had “not received any requests”.

An expropriation deal which the Government Property Division entered into with property owner Marco Gaffarena has been subject to scrutiny by the media and the Opposition, with questions being raised on the timeframes of the deals and the choice of lands which were passed on to Gaffarena.

The Nationalist Party has said that the agreement “stinks of corruption”; shadow justice minister Jason Azzopardi declared that Gaffarena must have been informed of the government’s intention to expropriate the building beforehand.

The Opposition has asked for an investigation by the Auditor General; Prime Minister Joseph Muscat called for a separate inquiry by the Internal Audit and Investigations Department (IAID).

But contacted by MaltaToday, the police confirmed that no investigation had been launched from their end.

“The Police have not received any requests to launch a criminal investigation into the matter,” the police’s communications office said.

Asked what was stopping the police from launching an investigation, the Police’s communications office said: “The Police have nothing further to add to the previous reply.”

Seeking the advice of three lawyers, MaltaToday was told that the Police “absolutely did not need a request” to launch an investigation.

“The allegations are in the public domain and the police have a right to investigate,” one lawyer said.

All three pointed towards Chapter 9 of the Criminal Code: article 346 states that “it is the duty of the Police to preserve public order and peace, to prevent and to detect and investigate offences, to collect evidence, whether against or in favour of the person suspected of having committed that offence, and to bring the offenders, whether principals or accomplices, before the judicial authorities”.

The law allows the Police to institute proceedings without the complaint of the private party in a number of cases, “including in the case of any offence affecting public order or the community in general”.

The lawyers explained that ‘public order’ was a very wide statement. In this case, the community was affected because the deal involves public land and compensation paid for through public taxes.