Court ruling ignored in Gozo development permit decision

In a development that has alarmed environmental watchdogs, legal experts, and the Maltese public, the Planning Authority (PA) in Gozo has once again found itself at the center of a controversy involving the sanctioning of illegal construction projects. In a case that raises urgent questions about the rule of law, government accountability, and the independence of Malta’s planning mechanisms, senior planning officials have overridden a decision by the Court of Appeal to reissue permits for developments previously declared illegal.

This controversy follows closely on the heels of the PA’s earlier decision to approve penthouses in Sannat, developed by Gozitan builder Joseph Portelli—despite the Court of Appeal having annulled their permit. Now, attention has shifted to another project: an illegal apartment block in Xewkija developed by Francesco Grima, known locally as “il-Gigu.”

Court ruling ignored in reissued permit

The most recent permit approval occurred under the authority of the newly appointed Gozo representative on the Planning Commission, Elizabeth Ellul. Ms. Ellul, along with two other Gozitan commission members, Cornelia Tabone and Pierre Hili, has approved a fresh permit for a residential block that had been previously rejected by Malta’s Chief Justice, Mark Chetcuti.

According to the judgment issued by the Chief Justice in early 2024, the apartment block developed by Grima violated the established local plan, which strictly allows only three-storey constructions in the area. Grima’s five-storey Mulberry Court development exceeded that threshold, and the court accordingly ruled the original permit invalid.

Despite the ruling, the Planning Commission has justified its new approval using a technical sub-clause of the planning regulations. Ellul’s rationale, reportedly, is that similar buildings in the vicinity have already received permits, which, in her view, justifies consistency in the area’s skyline—even if those neighboring permits are themselves contested or questionable.

Pattern of developer-linked approvals emerges

The case raises further questions due to the intertwined nature of the permits and the individuals behind them. The projects cited by Ellul as precedent were themselves granted to Grima and another developer, Mark Agius, also known as Ta’ Dirjanu. Agius is a long-standing associate of Joseph Portelli and has also faced allegations of circumventing planning protocols.

All cited permits were prepared and submitted by Architect Alexander Bigeni, who is both a relative of Planning Minister Clint Camilleri and a former consultant to the Planning Authority. This connection has prompted allegations of nepotism and a lack of impartiality in planning decisions.

Grima’s own ties to the Gozo Ministry are also of concern. While Minister Camilleri denies having any business relationship with Grima, multiple sources have indicated that Grima has benefitted from preferential treatment in public tenders and development concessions, including the prominent redevelopment of Fort Chambray.

Background of the Mulberry Court project

The origins of the controversy surrounding the Xewkija apartment block trace back to 2020, when Grima first applied for a permit to build the five-storey Mulberry Court complex. The PA granted approval in contravention of its own Directorate’s recommendation. The Superintendence for Cultural Heritage had also objected to the project, citing the area’s zoning limits and its cultural significance.

Despite pending appeals, construction began swiftly and was completed within three years. The appeal process—meant to delay development in such contentious cases—was not accompanied by any moratorium on construction. A promise by Prime Minister Robert Abela to suspend works during legal proceedings remained unfulfilled.

In 2024, the Court of Appeal finally ruled that the permit had been issued unlawfully and should be treated as if it never existed. Yet, by this time, Grima had already completed the building and sold multiple units—raising legal questions about property rights, consumer protection, and enforcement of judicial decisions.

Enforcement failure by the Planning Authority

After the court ruling, the expectation was that the Planning Authority would issue enforcement notices requiring the demolition or alteration of the illegal structure. However, no such orders were issued. The structure remains standing, fully occupied in some cases, and the PA has taken no action to uphold the court’s decision.

Legal observers have expressed concerns that this amounts to de facto contempt of court, undermining judicial authority and public confidence in administrative law enforcement. Under Maltese law, failure to enforce a final court decision, particularly one from the highest appellate court, may constitute a criminal offense in certain circumstances.

Reissuing of the permit raises constitutional concerns

The decision by Ellul and her colleagues to reissue the permit—effectively nullifying the Chief Justice’s ruling—has drawn strong criticism from legal practitioners. The Maltese Constitution designates the Court of Appeal as the country’s highest legal authority. When its judgments are sidestepped or reinterpreted by administrative bodies, it sets a dangerous precedent that could erode the separation of powers.

Environmental NGOs and local residents have responded with formal protests and petitions, while legal experts warn that the case may eventually be brought before the European Court of Justice if national mechanisms fail to uphold the rule of law.

Developer’s growing influence in Gozo

Grima’s rapid rise in Gozo’s development scene has not gone unnoticed. Once considered a minor figure in the industry, his company, Elzan Properties, now manages dozens of projects across the island. His visibility and apparent immunity to planning enforcement have led to speculation that political patronage may be at play.

One of the most high-profile projects associated with Grima is the proposed redevelopment of Fort Chambray. Together with businessman Michael Caruana—known locally as “il-Billi”—and other partners, Grima has acquired the state concession for the historic fortress. Plans include the demolition of rare British-era barracks to make way for modern luxury apartments and a hotel.

The transfer of the concession was approved by both major political parties, despite opposition from heritage preservation advocates. Critics argue that this shows the influence of powerful developers in shaping public policy and urban planning in Malta.

The broader implications for planning in Malta

The Gozo controversy is emblematic of a wider issue in Malta’s planning system, where enforcement is often weak, political connections frequently override technical objections, and transparency is lacking.

In recent years, the Planning Authority has faced increasing scrutiny from civil society, journalists, and EU observers for what has been perceived as a pattern of irregular approvals, haphazard urban expansion, and poor enforcement of environmental and cultural protections.

Calls for reform have been growing. Among the suggestions put forward are the depoliticization of the Planning Authority, increased public oversight, a moratorium on large-scale developments in ecologically sensitive areas, and the enforcement of court rulings without exception.

Moving forward: legal accountability and public trust

Ultimately, the future of Malta’s planning framework depends on its ability to operate within the bounds of law and public accountability. When senior officials are seen as acting in defiance of the judiciary, the consequences extend beyond a single building project—they challenge the credibility of democratic institutions.

As environmental groups prepare further legal challenges and possible international appeals, all eyes remain on the Planning Authority, the Gozo Ministry, and the judiciary to see whether the rule of law will be reasserted.

Conclusion

The situation unfolding in Gozo represents a profound test of Malta’s legal integrity, institutional accountability, and public trust in the planning system. The reapproval of an illegal development—despite a clear ruling by the country’s highest court—exemplifies what many see as a dangerous erosion of the rule of law, where politically connected developers appear to operate with impunity. The actions of the Planning Authority, particularly those of Elizabeth Ellul and her commission, raise significant constitutional concerns, as they effectively override judicial authority in favor of private interests.

At the heart of this issue is a broader crisis of governance—one in which planning laws are inconsistently enforced, court judgments are disregarded, and influential developers with political ties are allowed to reshape the physical and legal landscape of the country. Without meaningful accountability and enforcement, the Maltese planning system risks becoming not only dysfunctional but structurally compromised.

The public outcry, legal scrutiny, and mounting pressure from civil society signal that this matter is far from settled. The government, judiciary, and planning authorities must now act decisively to restore credibility, ensure compliance with the law, and protect Malta’s democratic institutions from further erosion. Anything less would set a precedent that undermines the very foundations of legal order and public confidence in the nation’s governance.

FAQs

Who is Francesco Grima and what is his connection to the Gozo development scandal?
Francesco Grima, also known as il-Gigu, is a Gozitan developer involved in controversial projects. His apartment block in Xewkija was declared illegal by the Maltese Court of Appeal but was recently reapproved by the Planning Authority, raising legal and ethical concerns.

What was the ruling of the Chief Justice regarding the Mulberry Court building?
Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti ruled in 2024 that the Mulberry Court development violated the local plan and planning laws. The court annulled the building’s permit, deeming it illegal.

Why did the Planning Authority reapprove the illegal development?
The PA, led by Commissioner Elizabeth Ellul, argued that similar developments had been approved in the same area, justifying a new permit. Critics argue this rationale undermines the court’s authority.

Is the decision to reapprove the permit considered legal?
Many legal experts argue that the move may amount to contempt of court. The reissuance of a permit for a development already deemed illegal by the highest court raises serious constitutional questions.

What is the local plan for the Xewkija area?
The local plan designates the area for buildings no taller than three storeys. Grima’s project exceeded this limit, which was one of the main reasons the court ruled it illegal.

What is the role of architect Alexander Bigeni in the case?
Bigeni, who prepared the permit applications, is related to Planning Minister Clint Camilleri and is a former planning consultant. His involvement has raised concerns over impartiality.

Did construction continue despite the legal challenges?
Yes, Grima continued construction even after the appeal was filed and completed the building within three years, highlighting gaps in enforcement mechanisms.

Has the Planning Authority issued any enforcement action?
No, despite the court ruling, the PA has not issued any enforcement order to stop or reverse the development, further fueling criticism of regulatory failure.

What other projects is Grima involved in?
Grima is involved in the redevelopment of Fort Chambray, a historic site in Gozo. The project includes plans to replace British-era barracks with luxury residences and a hotel.

Are further legal actions expected?
Yes, environmental groups and residents are considering additional legal challenges, and international legal recourse may be sought if national institutions fail to act.