L-amnestija hi insult għalina lkoll

552.26

L-amnestija imħabbra l-ġimgħa l-oħra mis-Segretarju Parlamentari Deborah Schembri u l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar hu insult goff lill-poplu Malti. Għax bl-amnestija ser ikun possibli li binjiet illegali jitnaddfu mill-illegalità tagħhom u jingħataw permess ta’ żvilupp.

Din l-amnestija mhiex limitata għal irregolaritajiet żgħar fil-bini. Li kienet hekk wieħed kien jifhem. Hi amnestija miftuħa għal kull irregolarità sakemm din l-irregolarità tkun fiż-żona tal-iżvilupp kif ukoll sakemm din ma tkunx ta’ ħsara lil terzi jew lil madwar (imsejħa injury to amenity). Ir-regolamenti ppubblikati ma jeskludux irregolaritajiet fiż-żona ta’ konservazzjoni urbana jew irregolaritajiet li jkunu saru f’bini skedat. Jiġifieri anke dwar dawn l-irregolaritajiet jista’ jinħareġ permess ta’ żvilupp!

Hemm ukoll element ta’ segretezza konness mal-applikazzjonijiet għal amnestija. Dan ser jagħmel l-iskrutinju pubbliku iktar diffiċli. L-anqas ma jissemma d-dritt tal-oggezzjoni li (skond il-liġi) jista’ jsir minn terzi.

Din l-amnestija hi insult lil min għażel li jimxi sewwa u josserva l-liġi u jimxi mal-kundizzjonijiet tal-permess ta’ żvilupp. Din mhiex l-ewwel amnestija li ngħatat u minkejja dak kollu li qed jingħad l-anqas ma hi ser tkun l-aħħar waħda.

L-amnestija qed tingħata minħabba l-kwantità ta’ irregolaritajiet fil-bini fil-pajjiż kif rifless fin-numru kbir ta’ ordnijiet ta’ infurzar li baqgħu pendenti tul is-snin. Numru li kompla jikber, sena wara l-oħra, għax l-awtoritajiet ma kienux kapaċi li jinfurzaw il-liġi quddiem min kien lest li jisfida. Mela issa min sfida u għamel ta’ rasu qed jgħidulu: issa ħallas multa u qiesu qatt ma kien xejn!

L-amnestija qed tippremja lil min abbuża u fl-istess ħin qed tikkastiga lil min mexa sewwa. Hi fuq kollox dikjarazzjoni ta’ falliment fl-amministrazzjoni pubblika.

Ir-Regolamenti dwar ir-Regolarizzazzjoni ta’ Żvilupp Eżistenti li permezz tagħhom qed tiddaħħal l-amnestija fihom ħafna difetti, fil-fehma tiegħi probabbilment intenzjonati. Difetti li jikkontrastaw ma dak li tipprovdi l-liġi prinċipali. Minħabba dawn id-difetti, l-validità legali ta’ dawn ir-regolamenti tista’ tkun attakkata fil-Qrati. Dawn id-difetti ser joħolqu inġustizzji u l-possibiltà ta’ abbuż. Għandhom ikunu ta’ mistħija għal kull min kellu x’jaqsam magħhom.

Advertisements

Salvu Balzan u meta tiċċaqlaq id-dubbiena

Saviour Balzan

Ix-xhieda ta’ Salvu Balzan quddiem il-Kumitat għall-kontijiet pubbliċi tagħti l-istampa l-kbira tax-xibka mifruxa madwar il-Korporazzjoni Enemalta dwar l-iskandlu tax-xiri taż-żejt.

Hemm numru ta’ osservazzjonijiet validi ħafna li jagħmel Salvu Balzan.

L-osservazzjoni prinċipali hi bla dubju immirata lejn dawk li qatt ma jkunu jafu xejn meta għandhom il-fama li anke meta tiċċaqlaq dubbiena jkun jafu, kemm x’ħin kif ukoll għaliex tkun iċċaqalqet.

Huma interessanti l-kliem attribwiti lil George Farrugia fis-sens li jekk jinkixef il-każ jaqa’ l-Gvern. Fil-fatt il-Gvern kien diġa moribond meta inkixef il-każ u bla dubju li kieku l-każ inkixef qabel il-Gvern immexxi minn Lawrence Gonzi kien ikollu diffikultajiet ferm iktar milli kellu matul l-aħħar ftit xhur tal-eżistenza tiegħu.

Il-każ tal-ħlas ta’ €5 miljuni kumpens lix-Shell f’Malta minħabba l-ostakli għas-suq tal-fuel tal-avjazzjoni iqajjem żewg punti ta’ importanza kbira. Dan il-każ kien il-bozza l-ħamra għal min kien qiegħed imexxi . Kienet indikazzjoni  li kien hemm xi ħaġa mhux f’postha. Iktar inkwetanti hu s-sehem ta’ Simon Busuttil, meta kien Membru tal-Parlament Ewropew, bħala konsulent legali tax-Shell fin-negozjati mal-Gvern Malti dwar il-likwidazzjoni tad-danni li sofrew. Is-sehem tiegħu jixegħel bożża ħamra oħra dwar kemm jintqal ħafna paroli dwar l-etika imma fis-siegħa tal-prova donnu jintesa kollox.

Meta tqis kollox jibqa’ l-fatt li hemm dubju serju kemm kien jagħmel sens li George Farrugia jingħata l-maħfra presidenzjali.

Nota:

Inġibdet l-attenzjoni tiegħi li b’referenza għax-xhieda ta’ Salvu Balzan fil-Kumitat għall-Kontijiet Pubbliċi tal-Parlament, u kif anke ippubblikata fil-Malta Today online, l-Kap tal-Opposizzjoni bagħat risposta għall-pubblikazzjoni. Qed nippubblika jiena ukoll din ir-risposta in vista tal-kummenti tiegħi ta’ hawn fuq:

Simon Busuttil right of reply 061115

Taking care of tax evaders

HSBC Geneve

 

Joseph Muscat and the Labour Party pride themselves with emphasising that this Government has removed the statutory limitation (prescription) relative to corruption when holders of political office are criminally prosecuted.

It certainly was a step in the right direction. It still however requires the test of time to verify whether it is compatible with the human rights provisions of our Constitution and the European Convention of Human Rights as was explained by former Strasbourg Judge Giovanni Bonello in his article Bribery and Genocide : the same? (Times of Malta April 20, 2013)

Such a clear stand against corruption contrasts with the provisions of Legal Notice 256 of 2014 entitled Investment Registration Scheme Regulations 2014 which launched the latest amnesty that can be utilised by Maltese citizens who evaded payment of income tax. Camouflaged through the use of Orwellian terminology as an “Investment Registration Scheme”, this amnesty, as others before it, did not treat holders of political office any differently from other tax evaders. It afforded them the same opportunities to be able to “regularise” their position absolving them from having committed an economic crime.

Apparently, this government considers tax evasion to be a crime which is substantially inferior to corruption. In fact, the recent cases brought to light by Swiss Leaks have revealed the ease with which former Cabinet Ministers have wriggled out of their tax evasion crimes that they had successfully concealed for around 40 years, including when in office.

During all these years, most of the funds which were accumulated in various bank accounts until they ended in an HSBC Genève account, reaped interest at varying rates depending on market conditions, which, as a result, increased the quantum of the undeclared funds. Had both the funds originally invested as well as the accumulated interests  been appropriately declared to the tax authorities in Malta , they would have been subject to between 35 per cent and 65 per cent  taxation in terms of Income Tax legislation. Yet the Investment Registration Scheme of 2014 allows self-confessed tax evaders off the hook subject to a  maximum 7.5 per cent registration fee! They even get a discount if they repatriate the funds! Apparently it pays to be a tax evader.

There are, however, some matters  which are not at all clear, yet.

Before insisting on his imaginary “right” not to be pestered by the press, former Minister Ninu Zammit had informed The Malta Independent on Sunday  that all his affairs were now “regularised”, having  made use of the 2014 amnesty to reap the benefits of his hoard stacked in Genève. He was also reported as having stated that the sources of his hoard was income derived from his professional activity  as well as various deals in landed property.

It is public knowledge that Zammit’s land deals were negotiated through the Malta registered limited liability company by the name of LENI Enterprises Limited of which he was both a shareholder and a director.  It is logical that any income from land deals would not only have a bearing on Ninu Zammit’s tax status but also on the reported performance and possible tax liabilities of LENI Enterprises Limited. In this respect, the  company’s financial reporting would certainly make very interesting reading.  Have its audited accounts been submitted to the Malta Financial Services Authority or its predecessors in terms of law?  Who has certified these accounts? What about the role of the auditors of LENI Enterprises Limited?  Is there the need to revisit the audited accounts of LENI Enterprises Limited due to the fact that at least one of its directors has benefited from the latest tax evasion amnesty?

As far as I am aware,  Legal Notice 256 of 2014 only absolves self-declared tax-evaders resident in Malta from their non-observance of income tax legislation. Other crimes could still be actionable .

Such other crimes would include false declarations to Cabinet in terms of the Ministerial Code of Ethics. There may also be other issues should these result from the investigations which the Commissioner of Inland Revenue is currently carrying out on the basis of the information which is now known.

There is however one important thing which we should never underestimate. The benevolence of the state towards tax evaders has no limits. It knows how to take care of these small details too.

 

published in the Malta Independent on Sunday – 1st March 2015

Meta Michael Falzon u Ninu Zammit besqulna f’wiċċna

Minster's declaration

 

L-evazjoni tat-taxxa hi dejjem materja gravi. Jagħmilha min jagħmilha. F’kull żmien.

Imma l-evażjoni tat-taxxa li ammettew Michael Falzon u Ninu Zammit fi tmiem il-ġimgħa hi gravi ferm iktar. It-tnejn li huma, skond kif iddikjaraw lill-medja huma stess, għamlu użu minn amnestija li permezz tagħha ħallsu l-multi dovuti skond il-kundizzjonijiet ta’ dik l-amnestija. Il-multi li ħallsu ħelsuhom minn proċeduri kriminali għal dak li għamlu.

Imma hemm dnubiet ferm ikbar li la Michael Falzon u l-anqas Ninu Zammit għadhom m’għamlux pentitenza għalihom. L-anqas għad ma taw l-iċken indikazzjoni li jidmu minn dak li għamlu.

Mill-1994 lil hawn skond il-Kodiċi tal-Etika tal-Ministri u tal-Membri Parlamentari huma għamlu dikjarazzjonijiet dwar l-assi  li kienu jippossjedu. Bid-dikjarazzjoni tagħhom ta’ tmiem il-ġimgħa Michael Falzon u Ninu Zammit ammettew li għamlu dikjarazzjoni falza quddiem il-Kabinett u quddiem il-Parlament.

Dan hu dnub kbir kontra l-istituzzjonijiet demokratiċi tal-pajjiż. Bid-dikjarazzjoni falza li għamlu quddiem il-Kabinett u quddiem il-Parlament Michael Falzon u Ninu Zammit besqu f’wiċċ kull min wera fiduċja fihom.

L-inqas li nistennew hi apoloġija pubblika. Minflok ikollna ir-reazzjoni arroganti ta’ Ninu Zammit li iddikjara li (issa) għandu kollox regolari u  l-għaliex m’għadux fil-Parlament għandu jitħalla bi kwietu.

Min besaq f’wiċċ l-istituzzjonijiet demokratiċi tal-pajjiż m’għandu l-ebda dritt li jitħalla bi kwietu.

L-amnestija ………… il-bjar fid-djar u l-ilma fit-toroq

Msida flooding

 

L-istennija għal dak li l-amnestija tal-MEPA ser tindirizza tkompli.

Sadanittant il-bieraħ it-Tlieta kellna ħafna xita  f’Malta (madwar 30 millimetru) u bosta mit-toroq kien fihom kwantita’ kbira ta’ ilma tax-xita għal ħinijiet twal.

Ktibt diversi drabi fuq dan il-blog dwar x’inhu jikkawża dan kollu. Il-bjar li suppost jinbnew mar-residenzi tagħna ftit għadhom jinbnew. Hemm ukoll diversi bjar eżistenti li m’humiex jintużaw inkellha huma żgħar wisq.

Issa suppost li għal dawn l-aħħar 135 sena f’Malta kellna l-obbligu li jkollna bir ma kull binja biex f’dan il-bir jinġabar l-ilma tax-xita. Fit-triq imbagħad ikun jista’ jintefa iż-żejjed, jiġifieri l-overflow.

Minkejja dan l-obbligu, l-bjar fid-djar ftit għadek issibhom. Minflok ma jinġabar, l-ilma tax-xita jintefa kollu fit-triq inkella fid-drenaġġ. Għalhekk meta tagħmel ħafna xita t-toroq ifuru bl-ilma, f’xi każi bid-drenaġġ. Kien hemm drabi li rajna  d-drenaġġ ifur mit-tappieri.

Għal dan kollu, barra min jiżviluppa (kemm fuq skala żgħira kif ukoll skala kbira), hi responsabbli l-MEPA li konsistentement tagħlaq għajn waħda u qiesu ma ġara xejn.

X’ser tgħid l-amnestija dwar in-nuqqas tal-bjar fid-djar, fil-flats u l-maisonettes?

 

ara ukoll fuq dan il-blog:

 

The Cost of Incompetence. 17 ta’ Jannar 2009

Water : A Long-Term view. 23 ta’ Mejju 2010

The Accumulated Cost of Incompetence. 7 ta’ Settembru 2012

L-amnestija tal-MEPA ……….. bis-sulluzzu

MEPA cartoon 2014

cartoon : Malta Today 6 April 2014

 

Il-bieraħ fuq TVam is-CEO tal-MEPA ħabbar ftit informazzjoni li tista’ tibda tlaħħam l-amnestija li l-MEPA qed tippjana.

Qal li l-amnestija mhiex immirata għall-kmamar tal-Armier u ta’ San Tumas. L-anqas ma hemm il-ħsieb, qal, li l-amnestija tkun applikata għall-iżvilupp irregolari li seħħ fuq art tal-Gvern.

Qal ukoll li żvilupp irregolari li seħħ barra miż-żona tal-iżvilupp jista’ jkun ikkunsidrat biss jekk seħħ iktar minn għoxrin sena ilu. Jiġifieri irid ikun seħħ qabel l-1994.

Wara li fil-bidu ta’ Frar kienet ippubblikata l-ewwel storja fis-Sunday Times, din hi it-tieni darba li qed toħroġ biċċa informazzjoni dwar din l-amnestija. Fis-Sunday Times is-CEO tal-MEPA kien tkellem fuq affarijiet oħra li setgħu jkunu is-suġġett tal-amnestija tal-MEPA. Dakinnhar kien għamel emfasi fuq xi ftit pulzieri differenza fil-qisien tal-btieħi bħala raġuni ewlenija għall-amnestija li qed tinħema. Raġuni li ma tagħmilx sens għax il-liġijiet u policies eżistenti diġa jipprovdu għall-kazijiet ta’ ftit pulzieri differenza.

Din x’serjetà hi li l-informazzjoni toħroġ bis-sulluzzu?

Mhux aħjar jinħareġ dokument għal-konsultazzjoni pubblika fejn il-MEPA mhux biss tinforma eżatt x’qed tipproponi, imma tagħti wkoll il-raġunijiet li wassluha għall-proposti tagħha. Ikun tajjeb ukoll li l-MEPA tispjega ftit l-impatti ambjentali ta’ dak li ser tipproponi. Meta l-affarijiet isiru bis-serjetà hekk isiru.

Għax s’issa, id-dibattitu pubbliku ma kienx ibbażat fuq proposti ċari imma biss fuq biċċiet żgħar ta’ informazzjoni u ħafna spekulazzjoni. Dan it-tip ta’ dibattitu ma jagħmel il-ġid lil ħadd. L-anqas lill-MEPA.

 

 

Il-MEPA bil-loppju

the pattern

(cartoon ta’ Steve Bonello: http://www.stevebonellocartoons.com/)

Diversi qed jippruvaw iwasslu l-messaġġ li l-amnestija li l-MEPA qed tħejji hi dwar affarijiet żgħar. Irregolaritajiet minuri li dwarhom jgħidulna li għandu jkun biżżejjed jekk tħallas multa.

Ma jistax ikun, qed jgħidulna li jkollna dawn l-irregolaritajiet kollha. Hemm bżonn li nkunu pożittivi!

Biex inkunu pożittivi hemm bżonn nitgħallmu nimxu mar-regoli. Hemm ħafna Maltin li meta bnew imxew mar-regoli. Dawn kienu pożittivi ħafna.

Issa qed jiġi propost li min ma mexiex mar-regoli ikun ippremjat. Tajjeb dan? Għax dan li tfisser l-amnestija.

Il-liġijiet u l-policies tal-ippjanar diġa jipprovdu għal varjazzjonijiet żgħar fil-permessi. Jipprovdu dwar soluzzjonijiet għal min għandu l-bitħa ftit żgħira, inkella għal min għandu xi filata nieqsa jew għal min ma jimxix eżatt mal-permess.  Jiġifieri fejn ikun hemm min jieħu żball żgħir dejjem kien possibli li jirrimedja. Bl-amnestija tal-2012 anke għal żbalji ikbar minn ftit pulzieri ġie provdut rimedju.

Li m’huwiex possibli s’issa hu li min jisfida tgħaddi tiegħu. Għax s’issa l-MEPA, għalkemm mhux dejjem imxiet sewwa, għad m’għalqitx għajnejha.  Avolja kuntant tħares mingħajr ma tara.

Jista’ jkun li hemm min għandu abbużi ikbar fil-bini li s’issa ma setax igawdi dak li għamel. Per eżempju qed jissemmew vilel sħaħ barra miż-żona tal-iżvilupp li inbnew kompletament mingħajr permess. Inkella forsi xi każijiet fejn inħareg permess għal stalel taż-żwiemel barra miż-żona tal-iżvilupp u minflok inbniet residenza. Jew xi każ ta’ permess għal washrooms li ġie trasformat f’penthouse f’żona fejn mhux permess.

Forsi għalhekk hemm min qed iqis li amnestija hi I-unika soluzzjoni. Amnestija li biha jilluppjaw lil MEPA.

Għad jonqos li nkunu nafu kemm ser japplikaw loppju. B’hekk ikollna idea ta’ kemm ser ikunu ippremjati abbużi!

L-amnestija li qed tinħema mill-MEPA

engos.PC.100215

 

Bl-amnestija li qed tinħema il-MEPA u l-Gvern ser jidhru kif fil-fatt huma. Ma jistgħux jibqgħu jinħbew wara regolamenti u policies li qed jindunaw illi ma jistgħux iġebbduhom iktar. Il-MEPA u l-Gvern bl-amnestija tal-bini li qed titħejja ser jagħtu messaġġ wieħed: ħawwad, għax mhux il-bogħod li nirranġawlek.

Dal-għodu attendejt konferenza tal-aħbarijiet indirizzata minn diversi għaqdiet ambjentali li wasslet dan il-messaġġ. Attendejt f’isem Alternattiva Demokratika biex nagħti appoġġ pubbliku lill-għaqdiet li qed isemmgħu leħinhom, mhux biss kontra l-ħniżrijiet li saru, imma ukoll kontra dawk li qed jitħejjew.

 

 

ara ukoll fuq dan il-blog : The spoils of environmental crime.

The spoils of environmental crime

euros-loads-of-money

A building development amnesty is in the pipeline. It is being handled by MEPA. No one is yet aware as to whether this is a MEPA initiative or else whether MEPA was instructed by the government to prepare a proposal. Nor is anyone aware as to whether there will be any public consultation on the matter. Only one thing is clear: development abuse will be given the green light as long as you can afford to pay for it.

From what is known so far on the proposed amnesty, it will be possible to pay your way around building development policies and regulations: around some of them at least, and subject to some limitations.

We already have rules and regulations which establish minimum standards on how land and buildings can be developed. Land use policies and regulations, as well as sanitary regulations applicable to residential buildings will most probably be the targets of a projected amnesty.

Infringement of land use policies and regulations can take various forms.

Building within a development zone without a permit, while being a serious infringement, does not require an amnesty. Existing legislation already addresses the matter and provides for sanctioning. This would be the case if the development carried out conforms with existing policies and rules and subject to the payment of already established fines. Problems may arise if sanctioning is not possible due to non-observance of height limitation rules or sanitary regulations. Current rules do not permit the sanctioning of buildings not in conformity with existing height limitations. Will the proposed amnesty permit such buildings? If the amnesty does permit the infringement of existing height limitation rules, this would mean that height limitation rules all over the islands might just as well be shredded.

What about non-observance of sanitary regulations? From comments in the media, attributed to the MEPA CEO, this is apparently a major justification for the proposed amnesty. An amnesty was already introduced through Legal Notice 229/2012 in July 2012 permitting variations to the dimensions of yards and the minimum internal height of buildings.  This 2012 amnesty was intended to regularise the position of dwellings whose backyards/internal yards as well as whose internal height were smaller than the required minimum.  The 2012 amnesty was not only about minor infringements. The 2012 amnesty made it possible to regularise variations of up to 35% of the yards’ dimensions. This is substantial, and is not limited to just a few centimetres variation!

The 2012 amnesty was unwarranted. Current legislation already provided sanitary authorities with the tools required to consider variations from sanitary permit conditions. In fact the Code of Police Laws in article 97(1)(p) establishes that when an exemption from the rules relative to the permissible dimensions of yards is being considered by the authorities, it must be ensured that this may be “granted without detriment to the wholesome condition of the house or of other houses in the vicinity”.  This legal guidance inbuilt in our legislation grants the authorities a degree of leeway to sanction variations (even more than those few centimetres variation), but in so doing the authorities must ascertain that the impacts of these variations are contained. In particular, the authorities are duty bound to ensure the protection of third parties when considering exemptions of sanitary rules. Yet even the 2012 amnesty ignored impacts on third parties and rewarded abusers by going beyond the consideration of minor misdemeanours. On the basis of the available information, the newly planned amnesty will follow the same path.

Sanitary rules applicable to dwellings serve the purpose of protecting our health. Appropriately sized yards are intended to ensure adequate ventilation in our homes; a measure intended to guarantee the quality of air indoors. This is essential to ascertain that buildings are habitable. As minor variations in the sizes of yards can already be permitted through these same rules, so what, may I ask, is the purpose of increasing the possibility of variations? Quite obviously, addressing minor variations is not the target of the amnesty as these are already addressed. Apparently, it is planned to target substantial variations which go beyond what the 2012 amnesty addressed.

Reports indicate that the proposed amnesty would also address buildings outside the development zone (ODZ) not covered by a development permit or not built in accordance to a valid development permit. In the past months we have already had the opportunity to discuss the Rural Policy and Design Guidance 2014, which, while consolidating (with amendments) in one document all existing ODZ polices, extended the possibilities of development in rural areas.

Applying an amnesty to areas outside the development zone signifies that it may well be the intention of the amnesty drafters to create another loophole, as a result of which rural land abusively developed in the past would be given the green light. For example, the owners of illegal villas constructed in the ODZ may be rewarded. This would be over and above the controversial development rendered permissible through the Rural Policy and Design Guidance 2014.

Having considered the above, it is legitimate to ask whether ignoring the law and policy regulating land use is a new form of investment in Malta, reaping substantial dividends: the spoils of environmental crime. Apparently, the authorities think that only fools observe the law. The rest can pay their way around regulations and policies.

What is the purpose of having laws establishing standards if the authorities, on a continuous basis, encourage abuse through amnesties and lack of enforcement action?  If the proposed amnesty proceeds as indicated, Malta will be sending out one clear message: it pays to ignore the law. Crime pays, and the state will come to your rescue to ensure that you cash in on your investments.  If the planned amnesty proceeds, the government will be an accomplice in environmental crime.

The Republic of Malta should not to be governed in this manner.

published Sunday 8 February 2015 on The Malta Independent on Sunday

Int baħnan jekk tosserva l-liġi ? (il-MEPA u l-amnestija)

 MEPA amnesty

 

Qed jingħad kliem fis-sens li l-MEPA qed tħejji l-qafas għal amnestija dwar l-irregolaritajiet fil-bini. Qed tidher il-MEPA, peró jkun tajjeb li kulħadd jifhem li l-MEPA ma kienitx ser tiċċaqlaq mingħajr il-kunsens tal-Gvern.

Il-liġijiet li għandna diġa jipprovdu ċertu ammont ta’ flessibilita. Tant li mhux korrett dak li qal lis-Sunday Times is-CEO tal-MEPA Johan Buttigieg li għax shaft ikun ftit pulizieri inqas mill-permess ikollu jitwaqqa’. Diġa jeżistu fil-liġijiet tagħna proċeduri għal każijiet bħal dawn. Kienu diġa jeżistu anke qabel l-amnestija li ta’ l-Gvern Nazzjonalista f’Awwissu 2012. Mhux għal każijiet kollha. Imma dawk il-każijiet ż-żgħar li qed jintużaw bħala l-iskuża. Huma rimedji li ilhom jeżistu snin kbar.

Imma jidher li bl-iskuża ta’ dawn il-varjazzjonijiet ta’ ftit pulizieri hemm min qiegħed jittama li jirnexxielu jgħaddi ankè l-ħniżrijiet. Qed ngħid hekk għax diġa qed jissemma bini barra miż-Żona ta’ Żvilupp (ODZ). Dan mhux aċċettabbli.

X’ser ikun propost f’din l-amnestija għad irridu naraw imma fuq ix-xefaq ma jidhrux affarijiet sbieħ. Il-messaġġ, kif qalet tant tajjeb Josanne Cassar, hu wieħed ċar ħafna: min josserva l-liġi hu baħnan. Hekk ser ikun qiegħed jgħidilna l-Gvern jekk ikompli għaddej f’din it-triq.