Public opinion and the Dalli saga

At the end of the day there were two winners as far as Minister John Dalli's resignation was concerned.

The repeated insistence by the Opposition Leader that certain things are simply not done, albeit from an ethical perspective.

As well as public opinion, which over the years has grown to accept the American norm that perception is often as important as reality.

It is an established fact that serious allegations that have sown doubts and suspicions have been linked to Mr Dalli's many years in office as a cabinet minister and junior minister. Irrespective of the portfolios he held and the areas of economic, financial, commercial and external relations for which he happened to be responsible.

Had the Opposition not taken a firm stand on both the Iranian shipping line and air ticketing issues, I am sure that the whole issue would have been long dead and buried. Even by those elements within the Nationalist Party that might have found it convenient to cash in on the emerging scenario as it developed in recent weeks.

What in my opinion led to Mr Dalli's downfall was that in the past he tended to act with near political impunity given that he always seemed to have found the unbending protection of former Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami and other elements within the Nationalist Party.

What I found most interesting was the summary of events attached to his letter of resignation.

If regulations regarding the purchase of tickets by Air Malta were changed in January, 2001, which was the ministry that made such changes? The Ministry of Finance itself, when Mr Dalli was minister? And if so, why?

We also came to learn that the chairman of the Iranian Shipping Line IRISL also happened to be the Deputy Minister of Commerce of Iran. Interesting indeed!

One particular thing that stuck in the mind during the recent Bondi+ programme was that the local shipping agency that 'won' the Iranian contract was registered only a few days before the contract was secured. So much for its track record in this particular field of activity.

Prime Minister Gonzi mishandled the whole affair in the way in which he wrote his letter of acceptance of Mr Dalli's resignation.

He gave the impression that he seemed far more interested in closing the whole issue rather than in getting to the deep end of the various serious allegations that have been linked with Minister Dalli's years in office. And which in certain people's opinion, had become a way of life for him!

Had this not been the case, the Prime Minister would have ordered an independent inquiry into the various allegations made over the years - including the two most recent cases - rather than declaring irresponsibly, as he did in The Sunday Times, that he did not think there was a possibility that past allegations levelled at Mr Dalli would be looked into.

Minister Dalli was incorrect when he stated that the only criticism levelled against him was that by certain economic interests that might have lost out on certain contracts.

In the case of the Malta Country Commercial Guide 2004 prepared by the Commercial Section of the US Embassy in Malta and released by the US Department of Commerce, the whole privatisation process as handled by Minister Dalli came in for a hiding, rather than solely those cases involving US interests such as the MIA privatisation.

One particular government which is known to have been irked by the way the hospital equipment tender had been handled by Minister Dalli is the Dutch government.

It must have been embarrassing for both sides that as from early July Foreign Minister Dalli would have been dealing directly with the Dutch presidency of the EU for the next six months, given that responsibility for our European affairs specifically formed part of his brief.

What will remain a mystery is whether Minister Dalli offered his resignation unilaterally or else whether he was given a Hobson's Choice by the Prime Minister that he would have been given 'the order of the boot' unless he acted 'on his own initiative' in a timely manner.

The Times editorial 'An inquiry is the best way out' hit the nail on the head on June 8, particularly when it stated that Dr Gonzi had let it be known without hesitation and unequivocally that he did not rule out the possibility that he would eventually order an inquiry into the allegations made.

What made him change his mind? What led to his backtracking on this public statement?

Why did Prime Minister Gonzi never deny allegations made that he had originally stalled the process until the European Parliament and local council elections were held?

With these elections now out of the way, and the Nationalist Party eating humble pie as a result of its poor showing, I suspect that at the end of the day speed and time suddenly became of the essence.

No matter what the PM might have told The Sunday Times, his government remains duty bound to investigate all the serious allegations levelled against Minister Dalli over the past years.

Leo Brincat is the Main Opposition Spokeman for Foreign Affairs and IT.

e-mail: leo.brincat@gov.mt