Former Planning Authority official awarded public consultancy role

A controversy has emerged in Malta’s public planning sector after a former senior official of the Planning Authority returned to the payroll of the same government agency through a direct consultancy contract worth €37,000. The arrangement has sparked debate among civil society observers, public administration commentators and officials who have raised questions about governance, institutional consistency and transparency in the use of public funds.

The official at the centre of the matter is Simon Saliba, an architect and former chairperson of a permit commission within the Planning Authority. Saliba had previously been removed from his commission role after concerns were raised about his performance and decision-making. His recent return to provide consultancy services has prompted scrutiny given the history of his tenure and the circumstances of his departure.

This article examines the background to Saliba’s removal, the nature of the consultancy contract, reactions from within and beyond the Planning Authority and broader questions about the Authority’s use of direct orders for key functions that are typically carried out internally.

Background to the Planning Authority and Saliba’s role

The Planning Authority is a statutory body established to regulate land use and planning decisions in Malta. It is responsible for assessing and deciding on planning applications, development permits and related regulatory functions in accordance with national legislation and planning policy.

Within the Authority’s structure are various commissions and boards that handle specific categories of planning applications. One such body is the permit commission responsible for development zone applications.

Architect Simon Saliba served as chairman of one of these permit commissions. During his tenure, civil society groups and environmental non-governmental organisations publicly criticised his conduct, asserting that he did not always act as an independent arbitrator and that some of his decisions appeared to favour large-scale developers. Reports at the time highlighted specific incidents in which objectors to developments were interrupted or where procedural fairness was called into question during commission meetings.

In November 2020, Saliba was removed from his position as the chairperson of that commission amid these concerns and was reassigned to a different role within the Authority’s regularisation board. The government at that time framed the decision as an administrative change, but critics saw it as a response to mounting pressure from environmental advocates.

The legal challenge and subsequent developments

Following his removal, Saliba filed a judicial protest challenging the decision, asserting that it was unlawful and procedurally flawed. In his protest, he argued that the statutory requirements for removal were not followed and that his dismissal had been communicated in a manner that did not afford him proper procedural safeguards. Legal counsel for Saliba contended that statutory procedures governing removal of commission members were not observed.

The matter remained live in the courts for several years. However, in 2024, Saliba withdrew his legal protest after receiving a new appointment to chair the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), a government body instituted to oversee regulatory aspects of construction and compliance. It was reported that Saliba saw the new appointment as comparable or more senior than his previous planning commission role and therefore chose to discontinue the court challenge.

Saliba later explained in interviews that “there was no longer any scope to continue” the court case once he had been appointed to a position similar to or better than the one he was removed from. He added that the issue had “effectively resolved” with that appointment.

The 2025 consultancy contract

In April 2025, the Planning Authority issued a direct order contract to Saliba valued at €37,000. The contract was described as covering “consultancy services related to planning and development management” and was awarded without open tender in accordance with direct order procedures that permit certain contracts to be made on an ad hoc basis. The contract details were published in a government gazette of direct orders for public disclosure.

When contacted about the arrangement, Saliba rejected characterisations that his engagement was merely advisory. He stated that the consultancy assignment was formally issued by the Planning Authority, that he had carried out the associated work and that the contract had since concluded because “the assignment was completed”.

Reactions and context within the Planning Authority

Current and former officials within the Planning Authority who spoke on condition of anonymity described the appointment as remarkable given Saliba’s previous removal from a senior commission role. One official commented that the decision raised questions about consistency and judgement, noting that Saliba had previously been considered not to have performed his duties adequately.

The controversy underscores broader concerns about the use of direct orders by the Planning Authority for tasks that some insiders believe should be handled by permanent staff. The latest public records of direct orders reveal a range of ad hoc contracts issued for administrative, technical and policy-related work that officials argue could be managed internally by qualified employees.

Direct orders and the use of external consultants

The Planning Authority’s reliance on direct order contracts has drawn critique from governance analysts who argue that such arrangements can create risks of inefficiency, lack of transparency and perceptions of political patronage. Direct orders are a legally permitted mechanism for acquiring goods or services without full competitive tendering, typically justified for specialised assignments or urgent needs.

However, in some cases, direct orders have been awarded for routine tasks such as preparatory reports, technical calculations or administrative support, roles that could feasibly be covered by existing Authority staff. Critics say this raises questions about why external consultants are engaged for work that lies within the Authority’s core competencies.

Civil society perspectives

Environmental and planning advocacy organisations have long been active in Malta’s planning discourse. These groups have frequently called for greater transparency, stronger enforcement of planning laws and more robust public consultation on planning policy reforms.

In previous years, several NGOs publicly urged Saliba’s removal from the Planning Authority commission due to what they described as an “arrogant attitude” and an inclination to side with developers at the expense of residents’ concerns. At that time, they contended that such behaviour was incompatible with the impartial administration of planning decisions and undermined public trust in the planning process.

The reappointment of Saliba as a consultant has revived debate on how the Planning Authority balances competing interests, how it employs external expertise and how it demonstrates accountability in its organisational decisions.

Institutional and sectoral implications

The Planning Authority plays a central role in shaping Malta’s built environment, influencing housing, commercial development, environmental protection and cultural heritage implications. Decisions made by the Authority and its commissions have significant social, economic and environmental consequences.

The use of consultancy contracts, particularly those awarded via direct order, intersects with broader public sector governance questions. These include procurement practices, the alignment of institutional roles with statutory mandates and the principle of maintaining confidence in regulatory bodies that make decisions affecting public interests.

Experts in public administration and legal governance argue that while consultancy engagements are sometimes necessary to bring specialised expertise into government bodies, clear criteria for when such engagements are warranted, transparent reporting on outcomes and safeguards against conflicts of interest are essential to preserving institutional integrity.

Legal considerations

Under Maltese administrative law, the Planning Authority and its commissions are required to follow procedures set out in the Development Planning Act and related regulations when appointing and removing commission members. Decisions to award external contracts are also subject to public procurement rules that govern direct orders and competitive processes where appropriate.

Saliba’s legal challenge to his removal and his subsequent withdrawal after a new appointment, reflect the complexity of procedural rights for appointees within statutory boards. The outcome of his case highlights how administrative decisions intersect with legal rights afforded to individuals in public sector roles.

Transparency and public communication

One of the central themes emerging from this episode is the need for transparent communication about governance decisions within public bodies. For sectors such as planning and development, which draw considerable public interest and stakeholder engagement, detailed disclosure of appointment processes, contract rationales and performance outcomes is widely viewed as a best practice.

Critics argue that greater openness can help mitigate perceptions of patronage, reduce speculation about private influence in public decision-making and foster public confidence in regulatory institutions.

Conclusion

The circumstances surrounding the consultancy contract awarded to a former Planning Authority official illustrate the complex intersection between legality, governance standards and public perception. While the engagement appears to have followed established administrative procedures, it has nevertheless reignited longstanding concerns about consistency in decision making and the criteria applied when engaging external expertise within public institutions. In sectors such as planning and development, where decisions have lasting economic, environmental and social consequences, even the appearance of inconsistency can erode public confidence.

This episode also highlights broader structural questions about how public authorities balance internal capacity with external consultancy, particularly when substantial in-house expertise already exists. The reliance on direct orders for roles that mirror internal functions raises legitimate concerns about value for money and institutional coherence. Transparency in such arrangements is therefore not merely a procedural obligation but a cornerstone of public accountability.

Ultimately, the credibility of regulatory bodies depends not only on compliance with legal frameworks but also on the perception that appointments and contracts are guided by objective need, professional merit and the public interest. As scrutiny of governance practices continues, this case serves as a reminder that maintaining trust in public administration requires clear standards, consistent application of rules and open communication with the public.

FAQs

What is the Planning Authority and what does it do?
The Planning Authority is a statutory body in Malta responsible for regulating land use, assessing planning applications and issuing development permits in accordance with national legislation.

Who is Simon Saliba and what roles has he held?
Simon Saliba is an architect who has served as chairperson of a planning permit commission within the Planning Authority and later was appointed chairperson of the Building and Construction Authority.

Why was Saliba removed from his commission position in 2020?
Saliba was removed following concerns raised by civil society groups about his conduct and decision-making at planning commission hearings.

What legal action did Saliba take after his removal?
He filed a judicial protest arguing that his removal was unlawful because statutory procedures for removal were not followed.

Why did Saliba withdraw his legal challenge?
He withdrew the challenge after being appointed chairperson of the Building and Construction Authority, a role he considered comparable or more senior than his previous position.

What is a direct order contract?
A direct order contract is a legally permitted procurement mechanism for awarding contracts without open competitive tendering in specified circumstances.

Why has the €37,000 consultancy contract drawn attention?
The contract has drawn attention because it was awarded to an individual previously removed from a senior role at the same authority, prompting questions about governance and consistency.

What work did Saliba perform under the consultancy contract?
The contract was described as covering planning and development management consultancy; Saliba stated he carried out the work and the assignment concluded upon completion.

How do critics view the Planning Authority’s use of direct orders?
Critics argue that reliance on direct orders for tasks that could be done internally may raise concerns about transparency, efficiency and public trust.

What broader issues does this case highlight?
The case highlights issues of institutional accountability, governance transparency, the role of external consultants in public bodies and public confidence in regulatory decision-making.