Sophistry will not do

The Mugliett saga is showing no sign of losing steam. Alfred Sant has truly got his claws into this one and is not going to let go. Can you blame him? With an election in the offing the Opposition is bound to revel seeing Government getting in a twist.

Besides, the public is very interested. And the government has not handled this case at all well.

Truth be told, the Transport Authority (ADT) has been a steaming volcano for a long time. It is unfortunate for Minister Jesmond Mugliett that this eruption occurred, because one of his canvassers was involved when the authority was part of his portfolio.

But such are the vagaries of politics. Things are either riding high or about to explode in one's face.

Think about Michael Frendo's problems with the bus ticketing machines in the Nineties, and look at him now.

Mr Mugliett's mistake was that he got involved in the case. A lot is being made of whether he exerted pressure, but the important factor is that he got involved. He "suggested" that the men should not be sacked immediately but suspended (more on this later).

He therefore got involved when he should not have done. He recognises this, but the Prime Minister refuses to acknowledge this fact, or that the minister's involvement amounted to nepotism.

And the PM's tactic of dealing with the problem is to announce to Parliament that the Commission Against Corruption is being beefed up.

The PM said he was open to suggestions to do what needed to be done to strengthen the commission. This because it has been repeatedly criticised for lacking 'teeth'.

According to press reports, the PM suggested to Parliament the setting up of a four-member committee - with two representatives from each side of the House.

Does he mean this committee to be a watchdog on the commission, or a replacement to the current membership of the commission?

As it stands, "Persons who are, or were, Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries or Members of the House of Representatives are not eligible for appointment as members. The same applies for persons who are or were, members of a local government authority or are serving public officers, other than a public officer who is qualified to be appointed as Chairman according to the preceding paragraph. Art. 3 (3).

And "In the exercise of its functions the Commission is not subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority. Art. 3 (8)."

It is not clear how the PM's suggestion ties in with his concluding remarks: "Let us discuss how the Permanent Commission Against Corruption can be independent, how it can be free from any interference and how it can have all necessary resources."

Earlier this month the commission issued a statement, saying that it finds it hard to find witnesses to pursue and condemn the culprits where there is lack of personal interest, as some kind of defence to its ineptitude.

I am afraid that does not give a very encouraging view, or engender trust in how the commission operates effectively.

The Times' editorial on Wednesday said among other things that there is a "lack of faith in the effectiveness of the Permanent Commission Against Corruption", adding: "it has to give an account of the work it has achieved over the 20-odd years it has been in existence and the reasons why it was not more effective."

Well, maybe not the last 20, but the last five would help, since the members are only meant to stay in office for that long.

The editorial also opined that "if it wants to win over public opinion, the commission should state clearly and in detail what changes it expects in the administrative and legal frameworks in order to be more pro-active and work more effectively."

Well, for a start, the commission should have an investigative arm to do its work effectively and not just rely on third parties.

As it stands, the commission is made up of a chairman, two members and a secretary, all male and at least two are retired. I mean no disrespect, but it does look like the commission needs some serious revamping.

To get back to Minister Mugliett, he has attempted to clarify the issue surrounding the precedent that has returned to haunt him. This was what was reported he told Parliament on Wednesday: "Last year an employee was convicted of tampering with a VRT certificate. He was given a general interdiction and the ADT wanted to dismiss him. But once the interdiction was reduced, the PSC ordered that he should be retained in employment and moved to another section."

Now most people reading the papers will have no idea what a "general interdiction" means, let alone a "reduced" one, why it was reduced, or who the PSC is.

An interdiction means one is not allowed to hold public office. But who mandates an interdiction? The law courts. A public official found guilty of accepting any bribe is to be "perpetually interdicted from holding any public employment and any public office", according to our laws.

However, the law provides that the court itself may discontinue an interdiction at any time on good grounds being shown to the satisfaction of the court by which the sentence was awarded.

The interdiction mentioned above was "reduced" through a presidential pardon.

The Public Service Commission is an independent body established by section 109 of the Constitution. Its primary role is to give advice and to make recommendations to the Prime Minister in the making of appointments to public offices, in the removal of persons from such offices and in the exercise of disciplinary control over public officers.

According to its Website, "The Commission interprets its role to mean that it has a duty to ensure that recruitment into and all promotions or appointments within the public service are made in an equitable and impartial manner; are free from patronage and discrimination and are based on the principle of merit. It is also the duty of the Commission to ensure that disciplinary action against public officers is fair, prompt and effective."

Ranier Fsadni in Thursday's Times gives the reader interesting information, which Minister Mugliett did not deem important to mention, namely that "the precedent cited by Minister Mugliett concerns an individual who, in stricken circumstances, took Lm4 (yes, four) to falsify a certificate. The individual was under 25 at the time."

That is presumably why the interdiction was reduced. Now why did Minister Mugliett not mention this little matter? Maybe, because otherwise his citing this case as a precedent when he "suggested" that the employees (around whom the present saga revolves) be kept on hold, might not have seemed so relevant, since according to Mr Fsadni, "they are guilty of taking several bribes in very different circumstances", and might not have had the desired effect, i.e., to suspend them on half pay until the outcome of a request for a presidential pardon.

Mr Fsadni's gist is to exonerate Mr Mugliett and lay emotional righteousness on the rest of us to show mercy to the people found guilty of corruption.

Whether the first case merited to be adjusted is another matter and it did not need a presidential pardon, since the courts can reverse an interdiction if given good grounds to do so.

"Are we a society that bans such individuals for a lifetime for so little?" He asked. What a loaded statement and one that is sidelining the issue being debated.

On the recent two cases, Mr Fsadni, who also has a partisan agenda, said that they were not told, "to get lost" when requesting a pardon "because we are a society that recognises the possibility of personal reform. What they did was grave. But both former officials are still young men. Do those who argue that their general and perpetual ban from public employment should never, ever, be modified really mean what they say?"

Ah, I am so touched by such generosity of spirit. But that is not what is being argued at all. No one, as far as I am aware, is saying "never, ever". The pardon has been archived, not denied.

But is Mr Fsadni saying that we should have different rules on corruption for "young men", or should we say ambitious young men?

However, this is not what the issue is about. The matter in question is one of nepotism. The minister got involved in a serious disciplinary case involving one of his canvassers; that is the issue here.

The ADT said it would sack them regardless of whether a pardon was granted or not. So I repeat last week's question: why did Mr Mugliett want to wait for the result?

Fudging the issue by using sophistry, as Mr Fsadni is doing, by appealing for mercy and saying the public is baying for blood and risking "weakening the foundation of one of our civil rights" is not serving the public at all well.