Two EP candidates tell magistrate they broke law

joe portelli

Jul 15th 2009, 06:53

These men did not break the law. They are reported to have pointed out that they cannot take the Oath because the spending amount exceeded the legal limit. They did not exceeded it themselves, if the sympathisers did not input and add funds there may not have been a case for them to reject the Oath.

They are saying that, it is the Oath that they cannot take, because the limit was exceeded - but that's not the same as they personnally broke the law.

They are in one word Leaders that recognise how to identify anomalies and highlight so that action to correct can be considered.

Others may ahve broken the Law but hope Gonzi & Muscat keep away from pushing the changes.

Joseph Aquilina

Jul 13th 2009, 09:39

@ Mary Anne Zammit

For me this whole issue is not about overspending but rather about overspending and then declaring under oath that you have not done so. This is what has been happening in all the past elections. the first act by some if not most of the politicians in Malta has been to perform, intentionally or not, and act of perjury. The candidates have to overspend as the limits imposed by the Law are ridiculous. €1,300 per district is not even enough to send one leaflet to every household and go even against the right of freedom of expression. Hats off to Demicoli and Portelli for putting this whole issue under a spotlight. Had they not done so no one will be even talking about it !!!

Alfred Farrugia

Jul 13th 2009, 00:29

And what if, as Mr. Bumble declared in Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist, “the law is an ass….”?

In the U.S., the candidate who was considered to be at a disadvantage succeeded to become President as a result of his experience as a community organizer. For several months during the Presidential campaign, he succeed to collect small contributions from thousands, and possibly millions, of voters to compete against those candidates who might have received financial support from lobbyists and other wealthy third parties, including business institutions.

Perhaps the time has come for the law to be updated and to distinguish between different kinds of contributions. Why should a popular candidate be restrained from collecting small contributions from a large number of people? The electorate should be intelligent enough to contribute to those candidates who promote sensible issues or programmes.

I am not suggesting that every one has the right to take the law in his/her hand, or the right to break the law. But a law has to be reasonable to be followed.

Alfred Cassar

Jul 12th 2009, 22:43

The spending limits are ridiculous especially after all these years without being increased. Dr Bezzina is trying to go to "Europe 'through the window' by disqualifying most of the others.

Charles Sammut

Jul 12th 2009, 19:56

A good number of comments here refer to some mayor who allegedly spent lavishly, well over the legal limit, to get himself re-elected. These objectors are expecting Dr Bezzina and Norman Lowell to include the local council elections in their judicial protest.

But that would defeat the scope of the whole exercise, which is to test the integrity of the PLPN. The mayor involved obviously belongs to one of the two big parties. So let's see whether the opposing party has the wherewithal to file a judicial protest to see that the law is upheld and respected.

I doubt it. In fact I will bet anything that they won't. People who live in glass houses cannot throw stones.

J. Bonnici

Jul 12th 2009, 19:27

Dr. Emy Bezzina the overspending by candidates for the local council elections should be included too in your fight against justice and transparency. Like the MEP’s the council’s election are too governed by the same legislation and the law was abused by certain candidates. The Mayor referred to previously by two correspondents that lavished thousands of euros in his campaign in excess of what the electoral law permits, has been warned prior to the election of June the 6th. A local newspaper revealed that this warning was passed on by the Department of Local Councils to both the Electoral Commission and the Commissioner of Police. In spite of this warning, this arrogant candidate ignored the warning completely. Worst than that it appears that the illegal action on the part of this PL Candidate had the approval of the PL administration, as the PL General Secretary was present for the 'Grand Reception" activity and to top it all addressed the large crowd present. Shame! Tal-Misthija!

Charles Sammut

Jul 12th 2009, 19:14

@ GiovDeMartino

Of course the election result changes. The same happens in atlethics when competitors fail doping tests. Or cars in a race use illegal fuel or bigger wings or tyres than that permitted by the regulations. They get disqualified.

This has been an election on steroids. In fact it has been a farce. Now if Mr DeMartino is happy with that, it's up to him. Many people it seems are very irate and rightly so. I have no doubt that should appropriate action not be taken, or the PLPN try to wiggle out of it because of their duopoly on power, Dr Bezzina and Mr Lowell will not let matters rest. And I am sure that they will be joined my many more.

Mary Anne Zammit

Jul 12th 2009, 18:57

I do not care how much an elected Mep has spent as long as he or she performs well. Well, lets say there is another election, which is far fetched, I am certain that we would have the same results, perhaps with the addition of a woman Mep.

C. Gauci

Jul 12th 2009, 18:43

I totally agree with Mr. Farrugia's comment. Who are these so called ' third parties'. Are they 'financial dictators?’ For what purposes are they so anxious to fork out thousands of euros to support and maintain a candidate, being an MEP or Local Council Candidate? Are there any past obligations or future ones? Are we prepared to accept that our representatives, being Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament or councillors of the Local Government being elected on the financial support of these 'third parties"? Is this called democracy or the beginning of modern dictatorship? As Mr. A. Cuschieri said in his comment I too heard of a Mayor that has spent thousands of euros in his local election campaign. All this effort to retain his post as Mayor! As an honest citizen what bugs me most, is the question of 'third parties'. I tend to accept a candidate declaring that he spent more than the law allows, but surely deplores the fact that he was sustained by these third parties. Neither the Electoral Commission nor the Attorney General can remain passive on this important matter.

GiovDeMartino

Jul 12th 2009, 17:51

Il-ligi qeghhda hemm ghal kulhadd, orrajt, IMMA b'daqshekk se jinbidel ir-rizultat ta' l-elezzjoni? Tistghu tghiduli intom x'fastidju jtukom lilkom, lili, lill-ohrajn jekk dawn nefqux mija, elf jew miljun euro? Iva kisruha l-ligi. Anki min jipparkja hazin, jew jitfa' sigarett fl-art ikun qed jikser il-ligi. Imma hana lilna x'jinteressani kemm nefq

D Vella

Jul 12th 2009, 17:17

"The End Justifies The Means"

is often used in a negative way. If the end justifies the means, then spurious ends, such as the supremacy of the third Reich, and justify unethical means, such as destroying anyone who gets in the way of this end. Or, the if the glory of God and the fulfillment of His wishes is the end, then burning people who are in the way of this is justified. Or if spreading the word of the Gospel is the end, then using deceptive and other questionable means to achieve this end is justified. Thus, people may say, when disputing certain well-publicized efforts to forward goals they don't share, "Uh-huh. The end justifies the means." (That is, you are relying on the same arguments that have justified every horror known to man.)

R Genovese

Jul 12th 2009, 17:11

So these men broke the law to try and achieve their own ends. One wonder's what else they would have been prepared to do had they won. Exitus acta probat indeed!

A. Cuschieri

Jul 12th 2009, 15:50

And what about the local council elections! They too were contaminated with overspending campaigns thus breaking the same law as stipulated in KAP.363. L-Att Dwar Kunsilli Lokali. Par. 97. This legislation speaks clearly of the repercussions for any candidate contesting for the local council’s election found tampering the law. I know of a Mayor that has exceeded many times over the equivalent in €uros the registered voters sum in his locality. He could easily be compared to any of the top notch MEP’s for his overspending. I hope the Electoral Commission and the Police Commissioner are aware of this fact and are prepared to take the necessary actions. This Mayor should be disqualified outrightly.

Nigel Lawrence

Jul 12th 2009, 15:47

If our elected MEP's have broken the law, they are not fit to represent the country. They should be bought back to Malta and be held accountable- just like any other citizen who regards the rules with contempt.

c. camilleri

Jul 12th 2009, 15:34

@Clint Farrugia. But why picking out Simon Busuttil? Is he someone special for you? What about the other five?
It is obvious that all candidates exceeded the limits laid down by the election law. Now we will see who is honest enough to come out with the truth..

Robert Callus

Jul 12th 2009, 15:23

While these two candidates have broken the law, they could somewhat be redeemed for not taking a false oath. The focus should be on the elected MEP's though. Or is it the usual story of a law that is strong with the weak and weak with the strong?

Dr Emmy Bezzina,EU Candidate

Jul 12th 2009, 15:09

A lovely photo depicting happy faces and smiles with a Declaration that the Law has been violated by those aspiring to represent our EU Member State.Not only the Candidates but even their Agents are liable under the Electoral Law - Chapter 354 of the Laws of Malta and, as Magistrate Meli correctly pointed out [ as did Norman Lowell & Emmy Bezzina in their July 6th Judicial Protest ],the legal repercussions and consequences are very serious,including not being able to vote for FOUR YEARS & not being able to contest any Election for SEVEN YEARS,plus a Fine,the possibility of Imprisonment,or both,and the forfeiture of the Seat if such a Candidate has been elected.In Malta`s Case following the June 6th EU Parliamentary Elections,a number of candidates violated flagrantly,arrogantly,abusively and defyingly the LAW DARING ANYONE by their misdeed to challenge their criminal stance.Well the legal gauntlet has been thrown and we are awaiting the Attorney General to set the legal proceedings in motion after the AG was formally informed to do so by two EU Candidates.We now see how strong and overpowering is our Democracy - failing action it might be argued that CORRUPTION is the RULER in MALTA - Awaiting?

Anthony Schembri Adami

Jul 12th 2009, 12:52

Are those elected above the law? Our democracy is only skin-deep!!!!

Charles Sammut

Jul 12th 2009, 12:12

This will be the litmus test of our democracy.

Are those elected above the law? Or should they, as legislators, set an example and abide by the very laws they have passed.

Not surprising how the credibility of the political class has nosedived and more and more people no longet bother to vote.

Clint Farrugia

Jul 12th 2009, 11:22

Funny how Busuttil keeps so mum when it suits him. I guess it is the best representative of Malta in the EU in this sense.

Stephen Farrugia

Jul 12th 2009, 10:59

These are two candidates that spent little next to many others. The cadidates were already warned before the election but they ignored the law. The law states that an other election must be called again or keep on counting. It is now clear, that this election is not yet over.
18,000 euros is a lot of money and I believe that anyone who thinks they are not, should explain, where the money is coming from, to be correct. We don't want a dictator funding our candidates do we?