Story has been updated to include ambassador’s comment, which was sent post-publication.
The American University of Malta denied that it roped in Malta’s non-resident ambassador to Panama in the decision to order the removal of boats from the waterway in front of AUM’s campus in Bormla, but failed to explain the purpose of its multiple meetings with the ambassador in question.
Malta’s non-resident ambassador to Panama, Jonathan Borg, primarily works as Bluhull Marine Agency Ltd’s chief strategic adviser in the maritime, and oil and gas sectors.
He was also briefly appointed as Transport Malta’s CEO from May 2023 to December 2024 before being removed from his post by Transport Minister Chris Bonett. Previously, he chaired another state entity, Yachting Malta. He was appointed as ambassador in June last year.
Insider sources familiar with AUM’s operations told The Shift that Borg’s alleged involvement with the university began in October last year and that Borg directly advised AUM’s leadership of the possibility of utilising a provision in its original concession agreement to order the removal of private vessels which were berthed in front of its campus.
AUM completely denies any formal business ties to Borg, stating that he has no involvement in the waterfront decision. In its response, the university claimed that “Jonathan was simply invited to visit AUM for visits.”
The university failed to specify why Borg met AUM’s senior leadership on multiple occasions if the purpose was simply a cordial visit to the school’s premises, and it did not disclose why a non-resident ambassador to Panama would have any tangible interest in doing so.
Borg himself did not respond to written questions prior publication. Attempts to reach him at his company were also unsuccessful.
Following publication, Borg “categorically” denied “any involvement whatsoever in any decision concerning the seafront area near AUM in Bormla,” and that “he was never engaged, employed, or appointed in any advisory capacity by AUM” and that he was “not involved in any discussions, meetings, or decisions related to this matter.”
“I have no knowledge of any legal advice sought and I am not in a position to comment on any allegations regarding the Public Domain Act,” he added.
On several occasions over the last few months of last year, Borg met with the university’s founder, Hani Saleh; its new president, Ghassan Al-Qaimari; its business manager, Andrea Fouad; and Board of Trustees member and Labour Party MP Chris Agius, among others.
In fact, Borg was among the first to meet Al-Qaimari, who was appointed to his new role in December following the previous rector’s resignation.
Shortly after a meeting with Al-Qaimari, Borg publicly praised the university for “further strengthening its international profile and its alignment with high quality Western higher education systems”.
A spokesperson for the Foreign Affairs Ministry noted that “non-resident ambassadors are not full-time government employees” and that “they are not precluded from engaging in other work as long as it does not constitute a conflict of interest with the state they are accredited to” when answering this newsroom’s questions about Borg’s consultancy work.
The beleaguered university, which recently attempted to undermine The Shift’s reporting about its decrepit student hostel while maintaining radio silence on extremely serious threats against its own students, continues to claim that it “is simply enforcing a clear provision of its concession agreement” when ordering the removal of boats from its waterfront.
It insists that ordering the removal of these vessels and restricting access to the area are not the same thing.
“You may also wish to note that AUM is not and did not restrict access to this area. It is simply insisting that this area cannot be used for the berthing of private vessels,” AUM added.
While AUM’s concession agreement does envisage granting the university control over its shoreline, the provision appears to be in direct conflict with the spirit of public domain law about access to “harbours, ports, and parts thereof” as well as “generally things belonging to the government which serve direct and immediate public and collective utility or which should be preserved for future generations because of their public nature, common social, historical or cultural nature, environmental importance or natural or strategic importance.”
A proviso in that same legal act further states that “any such declaration shall be subject to any private rights which may exist over such property.”
It remains unclear whether AUM’s decision can be challenged on public utility grounds and whether its concession agreement permits it to retain the waterfront indefinitely.
Following swift public outrage within Cottonera’s community over the decision, which affected around 50 boat owners who previously berthed their vessels there, the government quickly moved to assure boat owners they would be allowed to remain without specifying how this could happen.
When that outrage began appearing as comments on unrelated social media posts on the university’s profile, AUM responded by claiming that its removal orders were intended to free the area from boating activity so the community could enjoy the waterfront space.