Dubious manoeuvres

Are you as confused as I am? I speak of the shenanigans over first the suspension of Malta Transport Authority (ADT) employees, which hit the fan in the past couple of weeks.

First, we had the resignation of the ADT's CEO, who claimed his resignation had nothing to do with the scandal but that he disagreed that the employees be only suspended, but was basically 'ordered' to do it by the ministry.

Then Minister Jesmond Mugliett told parliament last week that the decision by the ADT not to immediately sack two employees convicted of bribery was a collective one.

The minister 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," he told parliament.

However, in a letter to The Times, 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."

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

Then the Prime Minister's office, yesterday week, issued a statement saying: "Minister Mugliett has never defended corruption or defended the people involved.

So much so that the (ADT) employees involved were investigated by the police, taken to court, found guilty, denied a Presidential pardon (my emphasis) and sacked from the authority.

"This is the way Government treats every case of corruption."

Ah yes, that is the position now, but the position has rather shifted, hasn't it?

So it was okay to sack them before the outcome of a pardon, because it is not at all clear whether the Presidential pardon has been "denied" or "archived".

On Tuesday, Mr Mugliett wrote in The Times: "My observations to the ADT chief executive (about the employees found guilty of corruption) were based on my function as minister responsible for the same authority and, in particular, the provisions of Article 6 of the Malta Transport Authority Act, which empowers me to give the required direction on all matters that affect the public interest.

"In this case, things did not even go so far. I simply drew the chief executive's attention to the fact that, less than two years before, another ADT employee who was found guilty of corruption had had his sentence mitigated as a result of a Presidential pardon.

"This employee had been interdicted for life from tenure of a public office by a court sentence; this notwithstanding, the Public Service Commission had decided that his termination of employment be revoked and instead be given an official warning, among other measures.

"Notwithstanding that we obtained the best advice available in government, the employee in question still managed to win around Lm8,000 in damages for improper termination of contract.

"Once I was aware of the similarity of this case, I would have acted irresponsibly had I not drawn this to the attention of the authority."

However, it seems that the minister went beyond "drawing attention", and the employees were suspended rather than sacked. The minister then expanded: "Although the two employees' termination was suspended until the petition for presidential pardon was decided, the ADT board confirmed its decision once it was informed that the request was being "archived".

"Archiving the request means that this was being put away and not decided for the time being. At no point was the ADT board's decision of February to terminate the employment of the two employees concerned, overturned.

"The implementation of the decision was delayed pending the outcome of the petition process," said the minister.

Now if this is not dubious manoeuvring, I don't know what is! The petition process "was being put away and not decided for the time being". Yet, the OPM statement said that the Presidential pardon was "denied".

So which one is it? If the former is correct, it seems an odd way to process presidential pardons.

Besides, what was the point of "delaying pending the outcome" of the presidential pardon if the intention was to sack them anyway, regardless of the result?

Now apparently, the President can only grant a pardon according to the advice given to him by the government.

So it seems the government had set a precedent by granting a pardon in a previous case (mentioned by Minister Mugliett), which has rather blown up in its face.

Because the two, who have now been 'properly' sacked (a categorical dismissal letter was sent to them by the ADT on June 27, according to the letter to the PM) are claiming they have been treated unfairly since one of their former colleagues, sacked in similar circumstances, had been reinstated after being granted a Presidential pardon two years ago.

It would be interesting to know what the grounds the government advised the President to grant a pardon in the latter case were, especially since it seems that person managed to win around Lm8,000 in damages from the government!

Minister Mugliett, to his credit, has admitted: "I should have given more weighting to the need to distance myself absolutely given the details of the case. I would similarly be at peace should the prevailing judgment be that I am held to account."

The prime minister decided that Mr Mugliett would not be the sacrificial lamb, however misguided his judgment.

To add to the tahwid (confusion), the ADT chairman has written to the PM to reiterate what he said in his letter to The Times that the board was not pressured or influenced in any way.

However, he then says that the minister suggested to the CEO that the decision to sack should be suspended until the outcome of the pardon.

It is not clear whether the board was involved in the following discussion with the ADT's legal adviser - "dan is-suggeriment gie diskuss" (this suggestion was discussed). It does not say who was involved.

But the letter was unequivocal. The decision taken was to wait for the outcome of the pardon, but that it would sack regardless. So why wait?

The Prime Minister would be well advised that it is not only his political opponents who are demanding clarification on how corrupt practices are being dealt with by his government.

Dr Gonzi cannot just shift accountability by his ministers crying partisan politics. Even if the minister is not involved directly in the corruption charges, he did lead Parliament astray.

At a time when the political future of the country is in the balance, it is essential that political accountability be brought to bear now.