Government now speaks fluently about “returning land to the public” and presents Manoel Island, Fort Tigné, and Fort Campbell as evidence of a moral shift. It’s a recent acknowledgement that public land and historical defences should be for the people, not for businesses. The language sounds reassuring while the intent appears noble. Yet one fortification remains conspicuously absent from this narrative: Fort Chambray in Gozo. Its absence does not stem from oversight. It results from choice, calculation, and political convenience.
Fort Chambray meets every test the government claims to apply elsewhere. The location is public land of exceptional value. It has endured decades of broken promises, stalled development, restricted access, and mounting controversy. It symbolises the uneasy marriage between public heritage and private ambition. If the principle truly rests on returning what belongs to the people, Chambray stands as the clearest candidate of all. Yet the government treats it as an exception rather than a rule.
The contrast sharpens when one examines Fort Tigné. Politicians now present Tigné as a moral correction, a reclaiming of what concessionaires misused. They frame the move as a victory of the public interest over private inertia. The reasoning sounds familiar: prolonged under-delivery, public frustration, and the need to reset priorities. Those arguments mirror Chambray’s story almost word for word. The difference lies not in the facts, but in the political appetite.
Chambray carries baggage the government prefers not to unpack. It involves an active concession, revised parliamentary approvals, and fresh planning permits that lock the state into a development-led trajectory. Reversing course would require admitting that earlier decisions failed the public interest. It would also require confronting powerful commercial interests already embedded in the site. Returning Chambray to the public would not generate applause alone; it would generate invoices, legal risk, and political discomfort. Tigné offers symbolism at a lower cost, whereas Chambray demands reckoning.
This selective morality exposes the fragility of the government’s wider narrative. “Returning land to the people” sounds universal, yet practice reveals a filter. Sites that deliver political capital without destabilising existing deals qualify. Sites that threaten to reopen uncomfortable files do not. Chambray therefore disappears from speeches, press releases, and glossy renderings of national parks. In the absence of guiding principles, silence frequently becomes the norm.
The contradiction deepens when one turns to the opposition. Newly installed Gozitan opposition leader Alex Borg spoke forcefully about Fort Tigné’s return to the public domain. He framed the demand as an ethical imperative, rooted in public ownership and heritage responsibility. He argued fortifications should serve citizens rather than gated communities. Those words resonated, especially in Gozo, where people live daily with the consequences of closed spaces and broken promises. Yet Borg stopped short of applying the same reasoning to Fort Chambray.
We cannot dismiss this omission as ignorance. Chambray sits at the heart of Gozo’s debate on land use, development, and access. Borg knows its history intimately and is fully aware that the public still associates Chambray with locked gates, stalled works and a sense of exclusion. He knows taxpayers shoulder restoration risks while private interests secure the upside. He knows that public access remains conditional and peripheral rather than central. Despite this, his call for consistency never crossed the channel. So, Gozo receives rhetoric, while Malta receives results. The principle fractures along geographical lines.
Bernard Grech’s leadership before Borg did little to resolve this contradiction. Under Grech, the party avoided firm positioning on Chambray. Internal disagreement, caution, and an aversion to reopening sensitive concessions kept the issue at arm’s length. That reluctance set the stage for today’s inconsistency. Borg inherited not only the leadership mantle but also a culture of selective confrontation. He challenged the government where the cost remained manageable. He stayed quiet where the terrain turned hostile.
The consequences extend beyond party politics. It corrodes trust in the very idea of the public interest. Citizens recognise double standards instinctively and carefully notice when principles bend around contracts rather than contracts bending around principles. They notice when fortifications in Malta qualify for liberation while a fort in Gozo remains trapped inside development logic. Each exception weakens the claim that policy rests on values rather than expediency.
Chambray’s case also exposes a deeper structural flaw. Government frames “public access” as a substitute for public ownership. It promises pathways, viewpoints and managed permeability while retaining private control over the heart of the site. This semantic shift allows officials to tick boxes without relinquishing power. A footpath replaces a park, while a route replaces a place. Chambray exemplifies this approach as the public may walk around it, but it will not truly belong to them.
Returning Chambray to the public would require courage rather than choreography. It would require admitting that decades of concession tinkering had failed. Renegotiation, compensation, or termination might be necessary. It would require placing long-term civic value above short-term political convenience. Those steps carry risk, but leadership exists precisely to confront such moments, not to sidestep them.
The refusal to even include Chambray in the conversation signals that the “return to the public” programme functions more as branding than as reform. It offers a curated list of successes while excluding unresolved liabilities. That approach may satisfy headlines, but it leaves the underlying imbalance untouched.
For Gozo, the message cuts deeper. When the island’s most prominent fortification remains excluded from a national narrative of reclamation, it reinforces a sense that Gozo continues to operate under different rules. While its heritage becomes negotiable, its public space becomes conditional, and its claims yield to expediency.
Chambray therefore stands not merely as a development site, but as a test of credibility. If the government believes fortifications belong to the public, it must say so even when the answer complicates existing deals. If the opposition believes in equal standards, it must apply them consistently, even when silence feels safer.
Until that happens, the promise of returning land to the people remains incomplete. Meanwhile, Fort Tigné returns to applause and Fort Chambray remains behind fences, both physical and political. The fort did not fail the principle, but the principle failed the fort.
Read more on The Malta Independent Online
