Commission Against Corruption finds no abuse
The Commission Against Corruption found no proof of abuse in four cases it was asked to investigate following allegations made in Parliament or in the media. Three of the complaints were moved by former Competitiveness Minister Ċensu Galea following...
The Commission Against Corruption found no proof of abuse in four cases it was asked to investigate following allegations made in Parliament or in the media.
Three of the complaints were moved by former Competitiveness Minister Ċensu Galea following allegations in Parliament by Labour MPs Joe Mizzi and Josè Herrera.
Mr Mizzi had alleged that a restaurant close to the Yachting Centre at Ta' Xbiex was using Malta Maritime Authority (MMA) facilities. The commission concluded that there was no abuse because one of the conditions of rent was that the authority's toilets could be used by the lessee and its clients.
Mr Mizzi had also claimed that the MMA had changed the way it registered vessels older than 25 years to accommodate someone, and that it had registered such vessels after their registration was refused by other agents. The commission concluded that no practice had been changed because of someone's personal interest, and 16 agents had benefited from having vessels accepted following the change of practice. It said that no application had been accepted after it had been refused by others.
Dr Herrera had claimed that MMA chairman Marc Bonello had a direct interest in tenders being awarded and was being present for their adjudication. The commission concluded that Dr Bonello had no conflict of interest.
The other case was moved by Chief Justice Vincent de Gaetano following an article in Business Today written by George M. Mangion, who had claimed that irrespective of a number of pleas from whistleblowers, the government refused to heed reports providing information on judges, magistrates, lawyers, notaries, businessmen and politicians who appeared to have been involved in a network of corruption and deceit.
The commission concluded that Mr Mangion had no evidence of corruption by any members of the judiciary or others and, as he himself had said in evidence, he had copied the paragraph from the internet because he liked the diction. He had referred to a report on activities which had taken place more than 20 years ago and which had long been concluded.