Mugliett denies misleading Parliament

Transport Minister Jesmond Mugliett yesterday denied having misled Parliament last week when he told Alfred Sant that the decision by the ADT not to immediately sack two employees convicted of bribery was a collective one.

Earlier, Dr Sant wrote to the Speaker of the House calling on him to investigate Mr Mugliett for blatantly lying to Parliament. He later also raised a breach of privilege complaint against Mr Mugliett saying this case was "disgusting" and Mr Mugliett did not deserve to be an MP, let alone a minister.

Meanwhile Mr Mugliett explained his position to the Cabinet yesterday and according to Cabinet sources, Mr Mugliett's colleagues pledged him their full support.

In his letter to the Speaker, Dr Sant said Mr Mugliett's actions were unacceptable in a parliamentary democracy.

"That a minister lies to Parliament in such a blatant way amounts not only to contempt of the House but (it is also) an affront to democracy."

The minister had defended himself in Parliament after outgoing Malta Transport Authority chief executive Gianfranco Selvaggi said he had been "told" by the ministry to reverse a decision to sack the two convicted officials pending a presidential pardon request.

Replying to questions by Dr Sant, the minister yesterday week had denied that he ever ordered the board not to dismiss anyone. "Had I given orders which were unacceptable, the (ADT) chairman (Joe Gerada), who has recently been reappointed, would have refused."

The decision, the minister had said, had been a collective one and had been taken on the basis of a precedent because a request for a presidential pardon was pending.

However, in a letter to The Times on Thursday, Mr Gerada categorically denied that he or the board were ever involved in the issue.

Mr Gerada said: "I never considered or agreed that these two officials should be retained, even temporarily, after they had been convicted by the court."

And he later told The Times: "I was of the opinion that the presidential pardon has no bearing on whether these people should be sacked."

The two men - one is the minister's former canvasser - were eventually fired, but only after reports appeared in the press.

Dr Sant, in his letter to the Speaker, yesterday morning observed that while Mr Mugliett had told the House that the decision was a collective one, the chairman had written to The Times to say that neither he nor the board had anything to do with the decision and they disagreed with it.

The authority's CEO had also said that the decision was communicated to him and he implemented it without agreeing with it.

Dr Sant asked the Speaker what action he would take against Mr Mugliett so as to protect the dignity of the House.

When the House met in the evening, Dr Sant during Question Time asked Mr Mugliett whether he had anything to add or clarify to the reply he gave last week.

Mr Mugliett said that in his question last week, Dr Sant had asked him whether it was acceptable for a minister to tell the chairman of an authority that the authority should not sack people convicted of bribery, and whether he would consider resigning.

He had replied that he never gave such orders to the chairman and the board. That was confirmed by the chairman himself, who had written that the board was not involved, informed or influenced in the issue.

Therefore, Mr Mugliett said, he had not been misleading the House and the chairman had not contradicted what he had said.

As to his reference to the decision having been taken collectively, Mr Mugliett said he had drawn the attention of the CEO on the pending presidential pardon and after consulting the legal adviser it was decided to await the outcome of the request for a presidential pardon. He had not given any order.

Mr Mugliett said that although he had not referred to Dr Sant's question on whether he should resign, he had not needed his advice. He could now point out that he had submitted the offer to resign earlier that same afternoon (on Monday) but had still been awaiting a reply from Dr Gonzi.

The Prime Minister eventually turned down his offer, arguing that he had not been involved in corruption but had taken a decision which was debatable.

Dr Sant said Mr Mugliett had told Parliament that the decision was a collective one. Collective with whom when the board was not involved and the CEO was against it? And it was clear from what Mr Mugliett had said that he had issued an order against the authority's dismissal of those employees. Everybody defined the word collective as meaning a decision based on wide and proper consultation with all involved.

This, Mr Mugliett replied, was a case of his word against that of the CEO but he had never accepted the CEO's claim that he had been given direction.

The definition of "collective" could be narrowed or widened, but he had spoken on the issue with the authority's lawyer and the CEO and the decision that was taken was to await the outcome of the request for a presidential pardon.

In this issue it was not necessary to involve the board since the decision was of an administrative nature.

Dr Sant asked for leave of House to read his letter to the Speaker and insisted that the Chair, in accordance with his duty to uphold and protect the dignity of the House, should explain what actions it would take against Mr Mugliett.

The Speaker said Dr Sant's letter was not part of parliamentary procedure but it was being given due consideration.

Dr Sant said he was requesting a reply because he wanted to act on the basis of what the Chair decided. However, should the Speaker not take a decision, this was his only opportunity to raise a privilege complaint.

Tonio Borg, Leader of the House, said Dr Sant could proceed with his complaint, but it would be irregular for the Chair to pronounce itself and then take a decision on whether there had been a breach of privilege. Dr Sant, if he wished, could read his letter as part of his alleged breach of privilege.

Amid heated procedural debate, Dr Sant insisted that it was the duty of the Chair to act to uphold the honour of the House and it was failing its constitutional duties.

He then proceeded to make his privilege complaint.