Polidano expands Ħal Farruġ development despite invalid permit, occupying more public land illegally

Construction magnate Charles Polidano, better known as ic-Caqnu,  has not only failed to comply with the requirements imposed by the Planning Authority to regularise his controversial development at Ħal Farruġ, in Luqa,  but has also continued to extend the site, encroaching on public land.

The Authority had issued a detailed decision outlining a series of measures for Polidano to implement within a five-year timeframe. These requirements, running to five pages, were intended to bring the development into line with planning regulations.

Yet, rather than adhering to the conditions, Polidano expanded his operations beyond the contested area, in direct defiance of planning law and occupied public land.

In 2022, a year before Prime Minister Robert Abela and Archbishop Charles Scicluna attended the inauguration of Polidano’s offices on the site, the Planning Authority declared that the permit was no longer executable due to the developer’s failure to meet its conditions. The ruling made clear that no further development could legally take place.

Despite this, development continued. Instead of implementing the Authority’s directives, Polidano pressed ahead with further expansion, including onto land belonging to the public.

The revelations come in the wake of a report by The Shift, which highlighted the high-profile presence of the Prime Minister and Archbishop at the 2023 inauguration of the illegal premises – a move that has raised questions over the endorsement of a development formally deemed unlawful.

The permit in question had been granted in 2010, subject to a series of requirements designed to bring the development in line with planning law. The Authority gave the developer five years to comply.

None of these conditions was ever met. Instead, Polidano continued to build, extending his development beyond the boundaries of the disputed site and encroaching on public land.

By the time the Prime Minister and the Archbishop stood before the offices to give their public endorsement, the Authority had already declared the permit expired. No further development was legally permitted, and the offices were deemed unlawful.

The episode sits against a wider backdrop of ongoing disputes between Polidano and the State. At the time of the inauguration, the construction magnate was facing some 40 legal cases filed by different government bodies.

An analysis by The Shift showed these included 11 from the Commissioner for Inland Revenue over unpaid income and VAT, 25 cases from the Planning Authority regarding irregularities on sites under his control, and a case from the Lands Authority accusing him of occupying public land illegally.

The disputes over fiscal compliance are equally long-running. Over the years, Polidano accrued around €40 million in unpaid taxes. Following years of pressure and the threat of being excluded from government contracts, he eventually paid roughly half the amount. And the Prime Minister complimented Polidano’s attempt to fall in line.

Robert Abela appeared to be signalling gratitude simply for an attempt at compliance, rather than for full adherence to legal or fiscal responsibilities. Meanwhile, Archbishop Scicluna’s presence lent a blessing of moral legitimacy to a development which the Planning Authority had already deemed unlawful.

Polidano’s decision to expand onto public land compounds the controversy. Far from addressing the Authority’s concerns or implementing the conditions imposed more than a decade earlier, the developer enlarged his footprint beyond the site originally in dispute.

The affair has wider implications for governance and credibility. The presence of Malta’s Prime Minister and the country’s leading religious authority at the opening of premises formally stripped of their permit raises questions about the consistency of law enforcement and the standards applied to powerful business interests.

The Planning Authority’s decision was unambiguous: the permit had expired, the development was illegal, and no further building could take place. Yet the developer proceeded, and the State itself appeared to bless the result.

It highlights a pattern long observed in Maltese construction: where political connections and public ceremonies eclipse regulatory authority.

As long as developments officially declared unlawful continue to expand with impunity, accompanied by the endorsement of the highest offices in the land, questions will persist about whether the state is capable of holding powerful actors to account—or whether symbolic displays of approval are allowed to override the rule of law.