Editorial

The driving licences bribery scandal, or, rather, its aftermath, should not be viewed from a restricted angle of whether the minister in question had a say in it, to what extent and why. What matters most is whether in handling the issue, the government put political expediency before political accountability and good governance.

The case involves two persons - three actually - who were found guilty of bribery and convicted. The first was retained in employment by the Malta Transport Authority (ADT), apparently on instructions by the Public Service Commission, after a presidential pardon. Another two were likewise convicted and ADT immediately sacked them. But their lawyer insisted that their case was not fully over yet because they had applied for a presidential pardon and, thus, they should not be fired at this stage.

The ADT reversed its decision to dismiss them and instead suspended them on half pay. The authority's CEO says he did this on instructions by the ministry and the minister insists it was the result of a "collective" discussion. The chairman wrote on this newspaper: "At no point was the board or chairman of the opinion that these people should be retained in ADT's employment following the judgment by the court that found them guilty. Nor did they ever, even temporarily, reverse this decision".

What really happened, why and how should ideally be investigated by an independent public inquiry. If all cards have been put on the table - as it is continuously claimed - then nobody should object to such a course of action.

However, a point that has been given little, if any attention, in this saga is the matter of the presidential pardon.

A presidential pardon can, of course, only be issued by the President. But, in turn, the President can only do so according to the advice given to him by the government.

In the first case, the government was, therefore, in favour of a presidential pardon. In the case of the other two convicted persons one has still to see what the government may decide. A letter written by a senior officer at the Justice Ministry indicates that the claim for a presidential pardon by the two persons has been "archived" and that they can ask for the matter to be reconsidered once other legal remedies available to them are exhausted.

The above prompts a crucial question: If the government really does not want to endorse the reinstatement of officials convicted of corruption and if no person guilty of corruption can expect any refuge from any level of government, then why has the government so far not declared unequivocally that there shall be no presidential pardons in such cases?

Had the government wanted to come clean on the matter of corrupt public officials, set a precedent and transmit a clear message, it should have advised the President not to issue a pardon to the first person convicted. And it should have taken the same stand this time around.

So is one not justified to argue that political expediency was here preferred to good governance? Against this scenario, whether a minister should resign or not is overshadowed by a much bigger consideration: Setting standards not just within the civil service and Cabinet but also nation-wide.

This is not just about the integrity and honesty of a minister, a public official or a political party. It is about a well-functioning Administration, able to exercise self-discipline and employing efficient and effective machinery and a system of checks and balances that work when the going gets tough.