Minister accuses Sant of shying away from testifying

Government Investments Minister Austin Gatt yesterday described a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives by Public Accounts Committee chairman Charles Mangion as "a desperate attempt to save the Leader of the Opposition the embarrassment of giving evidence to the committee".

Dr Mangion on Tuesday sent a letter to Mr Speaker telling him he felt he could not preside over sittings deliberating a motion approved on September 4 because of a conflict of interest.

The motion was for the committee to investigate allegations made by Labour leader Alfred Sant on August 26. He alleged that a Gozitan contractor working on the Gozo drainage treatment plant was awarded a contract in spite of his bid being Lm1.5 million higher than the cheapest one. According to Dr Sant this was due to the fact that the contractor was a friend of Gozo Minister Giovanna Debono and Roads Minister Jesmond Mugliett.

He also alleged that the Water Services Corporation chairman was concealing problematic work in spite of requests by Investments Minister Austin Gatt to take action.

In his letter, Dr Gatt said that no legalese, mental somersaults or flexing of parliamentary regulations could make one forget one simple fact - that the Opposition Leader was afraid to give evidence.

While it was not clear what Dr Mangion wanted from the Speaker, the whole issue centred on the specific allegations made by Dr Sant and which were documented in writing in an MLP statement.

The Public Accounts Committee decided that Dr Sant should be given the opportunity to go to the committee with evidence to substantiate the allegations and request information from the opposing testimony.

Dr Gatt noted that Contracts Department records showed that the tender in question was given to a French company and no Gozitan contractor was involved.

So it seemed that, prima facie, Dr Sant's statement was a complete invention.

The chairman of the Contracts Committee was also invited to give evidence at the PAC so that the Opposition Leader could ask him whatever he wanted.

The WSC chairman had already said in public that what Dr Sant was saying was incorrect and he was also invited to give evidence at the sitting so that, in this case too, Dr Sant could ask any question.

Dr Gatt said he had also publicly stated that what Dr Sant said about him was a lie. Dr Sant could have even asked him whatever he wanted.

Even young children understood that Dr Mangion's letter, written in legalese to divert from the real issue, was aimed at giving the Opposition Leader a puerile excuse to be able to say he would not testify to a committee he had no confidence in, Dr Gatt added.

He accused Dr Sant of not having the courage to appear before the committee because he did not have proof about what he said and knew he would be confronted with opposing and irrefutable evidence.

The political consequence would naturally be that the public would start to understand that Dr Sant's Sunday allegations were inventions.

The Leader of the Opposition wanted to avoid this no matter what, even if it meant dismantling the PAC, which seemed to be the ultimate aim of Dr Mangion's letter.

Dr Gatt said Dr Mangion implied that the system of unanimity in the committee when addressing motions was breached by the government when the Voice of the Mediterranean report was debated.

A motion, Dr Gatt said, had been moved by the opposition and he had warned that if the opposition insisted on a vote, the government would be constrained to present its own motion.

If the chairman believed that the motion for the Auditor General to be investigated regarding the VOM inquiry was ultra vires and could not be implemented, he should have given a ruling in that sense. This could then be contested.

Referring to the claim that it was customary for investigations to first be carried out by the Auditor General, Dr Gatt said there was nothing in the regulations about this procedure.

He said the excuse of a conflict of interest was banal. The conflict of interest of an MP was regulated by the Constitution and it was evident that in this case, there was none.

The chairman, he added, was not just abstaining from carrying out his duties, something he could not do without resigning, but was also subjecting the continuation of his duties to a condition imposed by the opposition, that is, that the Opposition Leader would not give evidence to the PAC. This showed that the opposition had no respect for the majority and wanted to dictate from the opposition benches, Dr Gatt concluded.