'People disgusted by inaction over abuse allegations'

Opposition leader Alfred Sant said yesterday that the people were disgusted with the way the government was sweeping aside all cases of abuse and corruption without anyone shouldering responsibility.

Moving a motion of no confidence in Parliament against Roads Minister Jesmond Mugliett, Dr Sant insisted that the minister had lied to the House when he said that the decision for the Transport Authority (ADT) to put off the dismissal of two workers convicted of bribery was "a collective one".

The authority's board had declared it was not involved in the decision and the chief executive had said he disagreed with it.

Dr Sant said the people, of whatever political belief, were disgusted by the way the government was acting in such circumstances and wanted change.

Things went back to the presidential pardon granted to Zeppi l-Hafi, the bribery at the law courts and a series of scandals in the granting of contracts for the new hospital. The government said it wanted to see accountability, yet what the people were seeing were cover-ups that had sunk lower than in Mussolini's time.

Everyone in the House had to shoulder responsibility for his or her actions. No serious explanations had been given as to how the staff of a senior minister had distributed pirated CDs, how millions were spent on Dar Malta, how almost Lm7 million were invested in the failed Brindisi terminal and how Air Malta bought the RJ70 aircraft.

Minister Censu Galea had declared knowledge of squandering and a web in a public authority which he said he could not tackle.

A Parliamentary Secretary had issued notarial documents under the letterhead of the OPM.

At the law courts, a cleaning contract was awarded to a company headed by a convicted person. Various chairmen of public companies had resigned without explanation.

The government had lost all credibility because it was a case of "anything goes". The only exception was the acceptance of the resignation of John Dalli in 2003.

In the Mugliett case, two ADT employees had been convicted of bribery involving Swallow Garage. This case had not come out of the blue but followed a two-year process which included disciplinary proceedings. One of the convicted persons was a canvasser of the minister and Mr Mugliett could not, therefore, claim to have been neutral in this issue.

Last October, a magistrate found the employees, who were driving examiners, guilty of receiving bribes from Saviour Cassar of Swallow Garage. They were given a perpetual interdiction. The ADT appealed, seeking a stiffer sentence.

The minister, in an effort to get the employees off the hook, had referred to a precedent. This was unacceptable in current circumstances. One could not use a precedent involving a person found guilty of bribery to get more people convicted of bribery off the hook. This reduced the Office of the President to ridicule, using it to short-circuit the courts.

The minister had raised the issue with the ADT's chief executive, who disagreed that the two people should not be dismissed but had to implement the decision.

The whole issue was revealed by The Times, which certainly was not Labour-leaning.

But Mr Mugliett's biggest mistake was to have lied about the issue in the House. In any other country, the Speaker would have requested his impeachment. The minister had claimed the decision not to sack the workers was taken after a collective discussion. Yet the CEO had said this was an order while the ADT's board members had told The Times that they were never consulted and never involved. The minister, therefore, had lied blatantly.

It was no use for the minister to say he had spoken to the ADT's legal adviser, who was another of his canvassers. Was this how the government took collective decisions?

There was no doubt that the minister had intervened in this issue because one of the employees, convicted of breaking the law, was a canvasser of his.

But the repercussions of this case went beyond Mr Mugliett. Had the minister also intervened to protect Swallow Garage? Did any other minister have a link with Swallow Garage, which had bribed these two employees?

Why had the Prime Minister employed two weights and two measures, accepting Mr Dalli's resignation in 2003 but not Mr Mugliett's?

This was a Prime Minister who said he wanted to be judged by his actions. In his resignation letter, Mr Dalli had said he could not tolerate political blackmail which was becoming institutionalised. Dr Gonzi had not denied this. How had such circumstances featured in the Mugliett case?

In Mr Dalli's case, allegations involving him with regard to the new hospital had been proven to be unfounded. Investigations into travel ticketing had never been concluded.

So why was Mr Dalli's resignation accepted while in the concluded case involving Mr Mugliett, his resignation was refused? Was it because Mr Dalli was his political rival?

But Mr Mugliett, having tried to pull strings and then lied to the House did not enjoy the confidence of the people as a minister and an MP.

Charles Buhagiar (MLP) said there were other inexplicable issues regarding the ADT. One of them was the difference in treatment between two individuals who had imported double-decker coaches for tourism purposes.

Even more serious were the frequent and substantial cost overruns in roadworks. There had even been a case where a water culvert that should have involved a three-digit sum had, cost Lm1.5 million after it had been lengthened from five to six feet. Who was accepting these huge differences? Minister Mugliett had been told to watch out for certain architects and civil engineers, but he had not investigated them.

On a point of order, Mr Mugliett said he had never failed to investigate any such allegations.

Continuing, Mr Buhagiar said Mr Mugliett also had professional relations with a fellow architect who tendered for road construction projects, which constituted a conflict of interest. These were things that should be regulated even by the Speaker.

There was a case of someone who had been investigated for corruption in Mepa for the past four years, but was still being paid. Interjecting, Environment Minister George Pullicino said Mepa was following the legal advice it had received.