Editorial

Democratic societies such as ours have developed systems and legislation to protect those who decide to blow the whistle on wrongdoers.

The principle, put simply, is that people who are aware of any wrongdoing are guaranteed immunity from prosecution provided they speak up and say the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

There have been instances of this happening here in sport, in crime and also in politics. Alas, in politics, the experiences have been somewhat sour and even risked transmitting the wrong signals, the opposite message the law wants to perpetuate: That all can, and, indeed, have the duty to, contribute to keep wrongdoing in check.

There have been cases in the country's political history, recent and in the not-so-distant past, where allegations of wrong-doing, including of outright corruption, were allowed to hang in mid-air. This usually discourages whistleblowers and, at the same time, encourages the bad elements.

Not so long ago, Labour leader Alfred Sant, from the opposition benches, had made a series of allegations about Nationalist Cabinet ministers but these fell flat on their face when Dr Sant became Prime Minister between 1996-1998 and commissioned the late Edgar Mizzi to look into the cases he had raised when in opposition. Dr Sant recalled on state television last Monday that Dr Mizzi concluded that, although politically Dr Sant had a leg to stand on, from a criminal viewpoint there was little that could be done given the lapse of time.

The country must have in place - and it does - mechanisms that are triggered into action when allegations of wrong-doing are made, provided, of course, such allegations are well-founded. Fishing expeditions for sharks could prove to be very dangerous.

In other words, what is imperative is that once you cry foul you must be prepared to cooperate to ensure that wrongs are righted.

Take Dr Sant's recent allegations about the Water Services Corporation. He alleged that a Gozitan contractor benefited because he was a friend of the Gozo Minister and of the Roads Minister and that the WSC chairman was concealing work that caused problems.

Public Investment Minister Austin Gatt thought it wise to ask the Public Accounts Committee - chaired by a Labour MP, who happens to be a deputy leader of the Labour Party - to look into Dr Sant's allegations.

Instead of getting on with the job and closing the case as quickly as possible, even in view of an impending general election, PAC chairman Charles Mangion wrote to the Speaker of the House of Representatives saying he could not possibly do what Dr Gatt was asking for because of a conflict of interest.

It is difficult to understand what conflict of interest Dr Mangion was speaking of, unless he meant that it would be awkward for Labour MPs on the PAC to have to question Dr Sant about his allegations when such questions may not have an answer. Yet, for all we know, Dr Sant might have answers.

So what is keeping Dr Sant from instructing his MPs, and his deputy, to call a PAC meeting and debate the WSC motion immediately? If he fails to appear before the PAC and put all cards on the table, he risks having his credibility dented once again.

This country may have the best-funded political parties on the planet and the best possible electoral system, but for it to have full confidence in its politicians and the political system, the players must constantly practise fair play.