Architects take association president to court after suspension of warrants

Several practising architects have filed lawsuits against Chamber of Architects’ President Andre’ Pizzuto and other committee members following the suspension of their warrant for three months.

Architects Conrad Thake, David Sultana, Carmel Cacopardo, Edward Scerri, Anthony Galea and Marvienne Camilleri asked the Court of Appeal to declare Pizzuto’s actions illegal and the Chamber’s decision null and void.

The issue revolves around payments that the government forks out through the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (CIR) for technical reports on valuations on the transfer of property for tax purposes.

A government tender issued earlier this year, establishing a €25 payment fee for each report, invited warranted architects to submit their offers.

Yet a directive was issued by the Chamber of Architects led by Andre Pizzuto stipulating that no architects, including those who are not members of the Chamber, take part in the tender as the payment offered by the government was deemed too low.

The directive’s intention, accompanied by threats of disciplinary action, was to boycott the tender en masse so the government would be forced to pay more to those interested in such work.

Ignoring Pizzuto’s directive, some architects still submitted their tender, with the Chamber retaliating by suspending their warrant for three months for not abiding by its directive.

Some of the architects hit by the Chamber’s decision have now filed a court case asking the Court of Appeal to declare the Chamber’s decision illegal on different counts, including those of natural justice and free market competition laws.

According to the architects, assisted by veteran lawyer Joe Schembri, Pizzuto and his Chamber acted as the prosecutor and the judge at the same time, without the ‘victims’ being given a fair hearing.

They also claimed that while it was Pizzuto who accused them of breaching the Chamber’s directive, it was also Pizzuto and his members who decided to suspend them without even giving them the chance to appear before the same ‘kangaroo’ court.

The architects also said the Chamber had no right to dictate whether its members should participate in an open competitive process, such as this tender, and that the directive it gave goes against its own earlier directives which endorsed the free market and the liberalisation of payments and fees asked by warranted architects.

The architects accused Pizzuto and the rest of the Chamber’s members of failing to act impartially, as they also had a vested interest in the issue and could also submit their own offers for the same tender.

Only recently, Pizzuto hit the headlines after defending architects turned into mega developers and speculators. Reacting to criticism, Pizzuto had told The Shift that such architects, including the one developing a  block in Manikata, engulfing a centuries-old chapel, were not in breach of the Chamber’s Code of Ethics.

Pizzuto had told The Shift: “A conflict would arise when a professional could stand to gain personally from delivering a particular service in such a way that it undermines the client’s interests.”

“It follows, therefore, that a perit delivering a professional service to himself cannot have a conflict of interest precisely because the interests are aligned.”

Professionals consulted by The Shift said Pizzuto’s interpretation was “completely wrong”.

Pizzuto reacted by issuing a statement falsely accusing The Shift of distorting his comments.