Caroline Muscat
MEPs used legal loophole not to take oath on expenses
Elected MEPs have shed light on a loophole in the electoral law that exonerated them from taking the oath when submitting their expenses declaration to the Electoral Commission.
All the candidates in the EP election held on June 6 took the oath as prescribed on the Commission's form, except for the five elected MEPs, Joseph Cuschieri who has observer status and the unelected Roberta Metsola Tedesco Triccas.
The seven candidates who did not take the oath declared their expenses to be within the legal limit of €18,635. On the other hand, unelected Nationalist Party candidates Edward Demicoli and Frank Portelli, as well as Labour Party candidate Sharon Ellul Bonnici admitted to exceeding the limit by tens of thousands of euros.
When asked why they had not taken an oath, PL MEPs Louis Grech, John Attard Montalto and Edward Scicluna, together with Joseph Cuschieri, once again chose to ignore The Sunday Times' questions.
Nationalist MEP Simon Busuttil said he did not take the oath because it was not a legal requirement, while counterpart David Casa failed to respond.
Ms Metsola Tedesco Triccas said her representative signed her campaign expenses declaration on her behalf due to the fact that she returned to her job in Brussels on June 13. She said the electoral law permitted this.
The oath issue brings to the fore the difference between the Maltese and English versions of the law.
The English version of the Electoral (Polling) Ordinance, Chapter 102, Article 50 (3) states: "The return shall be accompanied by declarations to be made on oath before a magistrate by the candidate and his election agent".
The same article in the Maltese version of the law says the oath must be taken by the candidate or his agent. Based on this, the seven candidates chose not to take the oath.
The form provided to candidates by the Electoral Commission contains on its front page two declarations to be accompanied by an oath - one for the candidate and the other for the agent.
The declaration for the candidates reads: "I do hereby swear that the return of election expenses is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that, except the expenses therein set out, no expense of any nature whatsoever have to my knowledge or belief been incurred in connection with or for the purposes of my candidature."
The Attorney General has so far declined to state whether he will look into the MEPs' declarations.
When The Sunday Times conducted an analysis of campaign expenditure, it had revealed that at least eight candidates appeared to have exceeded the limit. It also emerged that Dr Attard Montalto seemed to be the biggest spender.
Dr Attard Montalto declaration states that he spent €1,400 on printing and €14,590 on advertising, totalling €15,990. By comparison, PN candidate Edward Demicoli, who always said his campaign was "by far" one of the least expensive, declared printing costs at €4,913 and advertising costs at €18,424.
Several unelected candidates from both sides of the political divide last week used terms such as "pathetic", "ridiculous" and "cheeky" to describe the MEPs' declarations.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
16 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
r ferriggi
Aug 10th 2009, 08:31
Is there any reason why the normal citizen doesnt do his best to avoid taxes, fines, licences etc etc??
this is the clear message we are getting,,,, the example of our leaders.
how can the public have faith in these people??
Stephen Farrugia
Aug 10th 2009, 08:29
@ Cecil Herbert Jones - EU Candidate
Democracy in Malta is not working because of all the abuses of the law, that distorts anything that could be called fair or correct. The political elite, have run this country into the ground, from 1964 till today. We cannot use our oil and gas supplies, our national debt is astronomical, new business is controled by a few, the economy and welfare system are about to collapse, our top politicians are all puppets.
A federal state and seperation of power is a path to break away from this mess because they are now not even respecting the constitution. The opposition has gone as far as a joint letter because they have a common interest. We cannot and must not have a one party state in a democracy. The immigration issue has always been unacceptable but they totally ignore the people and now, even the EU. This country is in deep trouble and the political solution is not a new political party or a coalition but everyone goes their own seperate ways.The two parties(sic) and the church can keep their failed socialism and create a federal Rightwing state of freedom.
Stephen Farrugia.
Cecil Herbert Jones - EU Candidate
Aug 9th 2009, 17:03
@S Farrugia
Parties may be formed but I do not think nor do I suggest that one Party, recently formed or not should pose as the sole plaintiff in the forecasted Court Case. The plaintiffs in such a case would be the defendants of the Democracy versus the abusers of the same Democracy.
Independent candidates and Party candidates from the entire political spectrum should unite together as signatories in this case along with EB and NL without compromising their political lenience. This is an issue concerning the common man, that is why the law on level playing field was put in place, after all so that every citizen has a democratic chance of partaking.
I encourage all those EU candidates who feel strongly that their Right to a fair election has been violated to be part of history in the making and hold hands in this common cause as citizens of One Democracy. This goes beyond bi/partisanship and right into the heart of every Maltese.
Together we stand, divided the enemy will stand, and next election will be even worse for us!
Charles Sammut
Aug 9th 2009, 15:23
With some candidates' expenses estimated as having been of hundreds of thousands of Euros, the question arises, what is the provenance of these funds?
Some candidates took out bank loans and therefore the money they spent was 'clean'. Others have declared who the donors were. But none of the elected candidates declared anything in the 'Income' section. Who invested in them? What return is expected on this investment? Was this money 'clean'? The Commissioner of Police is going to be busy because irrespective of whether the AG moves or not, someone else will.
How about His Grace, Bishop Mario Grech, giving us his opinion on this one? Somehow I doubt it.
Dr EMMY BEZZINA - EU Candidate
Aug 9th 2009, 14:51
Contrary to what my learned younger colleague is stating, Chapter 354 of The Laws of Malta,relating to the Report and Expenses` Declaration of Candidates,make it obligatory on both Candidate & Agent to sign the Report + Declaration: vide for example [ but NOT the only example ] Article 50 which must be read AS A WHOLE Article,not specifically with Reference to subarticle 3 of same Article 50.By his Statement, Dr Busuttil is almost confirming that there was a coordinated effort by the Seven Candidates referred to,which coordinated effort could not occur without the connivance of the Top Brass.This is very preoccupying indeed.No Mention has been made by Dr Busuttil about ILLEGAL ACTS or ACTS OF CORRUPTION which Chapter 354 clearly alludes to.What`s more in NONE of the Elected Candidates` Reports [ + the OBSERVER ] are there Receipts attached,an obligatory ingredient as per the Law referred to.A Law cannot be read or interpreted in accordance with the self interests of any particular individual - it has to be read and interpreted holistically to safeguard its spirit:I do not have to lecture to SB on this point.All this confirms that THE LAW has been violated!
Robert Callus
Aug 9th 2009, 12:48
The law riddled by loopholes once again used against the Maltese citizen. THis time even more aggressively since the two main parties are united against us.
Cecil Herbert Jones
Aug 9th 2009, 12:45
It seems the Euro has not only replaced the Maltese Lira but has also changed our democratic values as well. Five years ago there were big over-spenders as well yet hardly anyone batted an eye-lid....typical LM mentality. The Euro changed all that, and suddenly the lights went on and exposed the rats going about their business as usual for now the financial language is different, and we are forced to speak and relate in a new tongue!
Once we accepted the Euro as our own, a Euro that was originally a foreign currency, and once we accepted to translate the Aqui Communitaire & rules of the EU from English to Maltese because we pledged to abide by them, it is logical that if a different interpretation is rendered by the Maltese language, because of a translation fault and/or otherwise, the original English text would apply. In the case of the MEPs who chose to avail themselves to the Maltese version of the expenses declaration form because it inadvertently provided them with a loophole, they should know that theirs is not a valid excuse.
Their chosen loophole will not hold ground in a EU Court of Law and Justice.
Dr EMMY BEZZINA - EU Candidate
Aug 9th 2009, 12:30
The deafening SILENCE on this SITUATION by the Country`s Authorities no doubt is giving an eerie feeling to the Citizens of this Country: is this a coordinated effort to protect the Inner Circle of the Upper Circle of our Society`s Highest Echelons ? No comment on this democratic abuse by the outspoken Gozo Bishop who does not appear to distinguish between STATE SOVEREIGNTY and that of the Organization he appertains to. All Candidates were handed a GUIDE which included among other relevant points that they had to familiarize themselves with Chapter 354 of the Laws of Malta + the Law related to the EU Parliament Elections.
An elected Candidate represents his country - the Five Elected + the One Awaiting cannot insult our Country by refusing to reply to legitimate democratic Questions by the Media:after all they feel at liberty to write their thoughts in spaced columns in our leading newspapers - so why obviously they are shying from the truth in a matter which relates to the fundamental concepts of TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY.Why do we have to rely on the Citizens` SHIELD [ THE COURTS OF JUSTICE - 1942 Internati Cases ] for the TRUTH to emerge!
R.Mifsud
Aug 9th 2009, 12:18
I wish good luck to all our six MEP candidates in their work and hope that they will pull together fo the good of our country.
If I recall correctly during the election compaign, some journalist asked most if not all the candidates whether they wanted to be elected because of the lucritive salary and benefits that the MEP's have. Most of the MEP's replied in the negative and some of them claimed that they did not know what the salary was.
Seeing the amount of cash that they spent on their campaign, makes you wonder whether it is the reason or not. I for one goes to vote as I feel it is a duty, but I also feel that it is the candidate duty to be truthful. If the law needs to be changed, lets change it. I personally am not effected by the adverts. If a candidate is valid I vote for him/her and thats it. I must agree we have to many LOOPHOLES in our law not just political though. Candidates should not go that far and resort to take a FALSE OATH.
S.Farrugia
Aug 9th 2009, 12:16
"The Rightwing is now suggesting a federal state because the basic legal requirements that form a nation, are not being respected, in many spheres. This path seems to be the alternative to forming a useless political party, in a country, were democracy and the rule of law have become a joke." Quote: Stephen Farrugia (31/07/09)
Charles Sammut
Aug 9th 2009, 11:26
It is also incumbent upon those candidates who played strictly by the rules, to make their voice heard.
These honest people were robbed of the possibility to serve the people by those who cheated. It is patently clear that some of the unelected candidates were far more suited for the task than certain elected ones. It is time to put partisan politics aside and join forces to see that justice and democracy rule.
Charles Sammut
Aug 9th 2009, 10:45
Why would the elected MEPs refuse to take the oath if they have nothing to hide and are the upright citizens they would have us believe they are? Why put the whole burden on their agents? What is going to happen if these same agents are hauled to court and accused of taking a false oath? This is becoming more and more the likely scenario. Will they be left to carry the can by themselves, while the people they represented warm the seats in the EP at a cost of hundreds of thousands of euros to the taxpayer?
These agents have been conned, and conned big time by the very persons to whom they offered their services. Some, if not all of them will now have to pay the price for being so naive and trusting. The evidence against them is overwhelming.
Charles Micallef
Aug 9th 2009, 10:44
MALTA......The Island of Political Loopholes!
Shame on all those involved in this 'national scandal'
irrespective of their political persuasion............
Dr EMMY BEZZINA - EU Candidate
Aug 9th 2009, 10:41
By their same legal yardstick,why did these SEVEN CANDIDATES authorize their AGENTS to take the OATH? Why make your AGENT take a False Oath and risk the penalties of the Criminal Code for Perjury as no doubt might occur ? If in truth,those who at least had the decency to reply [ namely TWO out of SEVEN ] truly believe ( which they do not ) that the OATH or a SOLEMN DECLARATION was not legally necessary,why BY PURE COINCIDENCE WE IMAGINE (?),did all of them dispatched THEIR RESPECTIVE AGENTS to take THE OATH then? Another Legal Howler a` la Triccas: since when in accordance with any legal system does a THIRD PARTY take the OATH on behalf of another individual ? It is legally simply not possible and you do not have to be a Lawyer to deduce the Simple Logic behind this commonsensical Assertion! Furthermore, the relevant Law is Chapter 354 of the Laws of Malta which was specifically referred to in the 2003 EU PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT.This issue is becoming a PUBLIC SCANDAL OF IMMENSE PROPORTIONS as it has GRIEVOUSLY MINED the foundations of our Democratic System.The Authorities MUST TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION.
Dr EMMY BEZZINA - EU Candidate
Aug 9th 2009, 10:24
This Article leaves not the slightest doubt that the AG & The Commissioner of Police should take immediate action against these SEVEN CANDIDATES who chose deliberately to violate Malta`s Electoral Laws .MALTA cannot be insulted and ridiculed further by having our alleged elected MEPs blatantly declaring that they will not account themselves for their irregularities in the course of the EU Parliamentary Elections Campaign.They never stated this in the run up to the Elections - hence by all standards they deceived the Electorate and have NO RIGHT to represent this Nation.Thus they have to respect the DIGNITY due to MALTA and RESIGN from their own accord if they do not want to face Court Action.It is a well-known fact to ALL LAWYERS [ apparently not to some ! ] that in the event of a Conflict of Interpretation between the Maltese Text and the English Text,the Maltese Text Version prevails - this is an elementary basic principle.ALL THESE SEVEN CANDIDATES are trying desperately to avoid the ILLEGALITY perpetrated by THEM - as for TRICCAS,Dr Roberta seems to have a particularly weird way of interpreting our Laws:AG PLEASE PROCEED!
Miguel Micallef
Aug 9th 2009, 10:22
100% Democracy