I often wondered: if Simed were prepared to pay a non-licensed investigator three per cent of the total contract amount of €94 million or €2.8 million (Lm1.21 million) once they get the tender for the medical equipment of Mater Dei Hospital, what would have been the success fee of their lawyers?

Nauseating repetition

Simed have a right to go with the interpretation of their lawyers, who wanted to keep pushing, by hook and by crook until they forced their position on Government. As much as Government had a right to go with the interpretation of the various professional experts who had an opportunity to study all the facts in depth and to come to an objective, independent decision that was diametrically opposite to the interpretation given by Simed and its lawyers.

When Simed's lawyers filed a judicial protest in court on January 15, 2004, they listed the same arguments that they repeated in their article last Sunday and which they repeated ad nauseam to the press, the Dutch government and the European financial institutions. (They tried to pile up as much pressure as they could in an attempt to intimidate us - with no success.)

Government filed a counter protest in court, replying to these misinterpretations point by point. Simed and its lawyers did not come back to proceed to prove their point in our court of law. Obviously, they were not convinced of the arguments they were, and are still, putting forward.

Verbal gymnastics

With regard to the annulment of the INSO tender, the lawyers' position is a crass misinterpretation of the facts. In its conclusion, the appeals board makes two different decisions with regard to INSO and Hospitalia. When referring to INSO, they decided to "annul the decision to award the contract to INSO spa", while in the case of Hospitalia they decided to disqualify their tender from proceeding further.

It is obvious even to the non-legal brain that the different wording intended a different effect on the two separate bids and that my interpretation that the award to INSO was suspended pending the exercise that had to be done with Simed was concluded is the correct interpretation.

I am not going to belabour the point and quote other extracts from the deliberations of the appeals board where they refer to a rescinding of the decision to award the contract to INSO (my dictionary defines rescind as to abrogate [a contract] and restore the parties to the positions they would have occupied had there been no contact).

This is a far cry from the lawyers' unilateral and biased interpretation.

An elusive list?

Simed was given a chance to give "unequivocal clarification regarding all items and areas highlighted by the technical, financial and legal advisors commissioned by the adjudication board". The lawyers want us to believe that Simed were never given information about the issues requiring clarification and that they sent in their clarifications to a list that did not exist.

In the correspondence that was exchanged between Simed and FMS, the facts are shown to be quite different from the lawyers' version. On November 5 Simed confirms the receipt of all reports related to the Mater Dei Hospital tender: the technical report by Secta, the financial report by Grant Thornton and the legal report by Muscat Azzopardi.

It transpires that FMS refused to swallow the bait by Simed lawyers who were requesting a specific list that would have narrowed the scope of the exercise.

Figures are not for interpretation

The pricing of the tenders were scrupulously scrutinised by the FMS evaluation committee, by the contracts committee, and by Grant Thornton. They all disagree with what the lawyers say and all affirm that INSO's bid was cheaper than that of Simed.

The board of appeal (page 26 of the award) lists nine instances that warranted careful investigation before arriving at a decision on the Simed offer.

In a press release that I issued at the end of December 2003, I also explained why Simed's claim that they were cheaper was false.

Insider information?

In their article last Sunday the lawyers admit "that on December 26, 2003, Simed were informed of strong rumours to the effect that FMS had decided to award the tender". December 26 was the same date when FMS sent their recommendation to the Director of Contracts.

I ask whether this fast communication between what was happening in the FMS Board and Simed was an instance of insider information. Should the Prime Minister send this to the Commissioner of Police for investigation as he did with the case of the Zahra Report and the IT tender?

Zahra case

According to the lawyers, all the above misconstrued interpretations justified Simed to hire the services of a private detective to unearth what (in their imagination) may possibly have been going on behind the scenes?

If Simed did not know Mr Zahra and relied on the recommendation from a Maltese contact (who can this be?), should not the lawyers have informed them that Mr Zahra had no licence to give such a service and that he had faced a previous charge of tampering with data? Is this gross negligence or is it not?

And if, as they admit in their article on Friday, the report concocted by Mr Zahra contained grave accusations but did not provide the required proof, should not they have advised Simed not to disseminate uncorroborated insinuations? Should they not have cautioned them against the use of information purportedly obtained through illegal tapping?

On the contrary, the lawyers acted as the messengers to disseminate this information. Does this dissemination of false information, and aiding and abetting the perpetuation of fraud carry any legal responsibility and liability? Should the Commissioner of Police extend his investigation of the Zahra case to this?

In their article last Sunday, the lawyers state that neither Simed nor their legal advisers exert any influence over Mr Zahra in any way to concoct "the report they wanted". In the evidence in court it was stated by the police that Mr Zahra insisted with them that he produced the report because of the persistent character of Mr Sietse Zoodsma, managing director of Simed, who kept pressing him for information and does not take no for an answer.

The fact is that the lawyers held various meetings with the prime minister (all behind my back). I remember that during that time, when I was being heckled by pro-Nationalist journalists, the prime minister was repeatedly asking those who had information to come out with it.

Finally the lawyers gave the prime minister the false and uncorroborated report in June 2004. (On that basis, the prime minister pressed for my resignation because he could not have a minister under investigation).

Now Mr Zahra's declarations do not carry much weight with me. But the credibility of Simed and the lawyers are not one nanogram heavier.

Promise to parliament

In his statement to parliament in November 2004, the prime minister promised that he would seek advice on whether Government should proceed against Simed to seek redress for the damage they caused Government (naturally the damages they caused me and others who were libelled in the process were beyond the prime minister's sights).

But still, over three years have passed and nothing has happened. Why did this advice not proceed along the track of the action taken in the case of the IT tender?