Editorial

Large public procurement contracts are often mired in political and commercial controversy because the standards that need to be followed in the process of spending taxpayers' money are necessarily very high. The Auditor General's report about the procurement process followed by Enemalta for the supply of a new power generating plant is characterised by hard talk on the unacceptably sloppy way this contract was handled.

While no smoking gun pointing to a clear-cut case of corruption was identified, there is sufficient evidence of bad public governance to send shivers down the spine of many hard working taxpayers who have to bear the cost of such laxness. The government has brushed off the report as vindicating its claim that there was indeed no corruption in this case, a reaction that could easily be interpreted as insensitivity to the hard times that ordinary people, including most of Enemalta's customers, are facing in the current economic slowdown.

When investigations like this are carried out, the terms of reference go beyond establishing whether anyone has defrauded the public by indulging in corrupt practices. Where public money is involved, as the Auditor rightly pointed out, what is important is to determine whether "the most economic, efficient and effective use of taxpayers' monies' has been achieved". The report clearly indicates that this was not the case in Enemalta's power plant contract.

The lack of sufficient cooperation by a key witness is worrying and only serves to fuel further suspicion, as was the use of an independent consultant whose reputation had been tarnished by his past behaviour. The way the Enemalta chairman managed the issue of his conflict of interest was also criticised by the Auditor although the chairman has defended his actions. Public officials are expected to conduct themselves according to the highest ethical standards if they are to merit the public's trust in their ability to manage state companies.

Equally worrying was the behaviour of the Director of Contracts. The checks and balances that should have been in place to ensure that Enemalta was not the only interested party calling the shots in this massive contract did not function effectively. How can the public have faith in the leaders of our public entities and the watchdogs of good governance given such a failure?

Another cause for concern highlighted in this report is the doubtful soundness of the actual decision taken. The selection of a prototype combination instead of a "tried and tested" system, as originally stipulated in the contract, is possibly exposing Enemalta to a very high risk - a risk that we cannot afford to take if we are to guarantee regular and reliable electrical energy to households and industry.

Even if no "hard and conclusive evidence of corruption" has been found, in the coming weeks the public political debate on this issue is bound to increase as pressure mounts to establish who should carry the political responsibility for the serious failures identified in this report. Many political analysts would agree with the statement that in politics what counts is not whether corruption exists but whether the electorate believes that it exists.

It is now essential that we move from hard talk to hard wiring accountability, transparency, value for money, high business ethical standards and effective checks and balances in our public procurement system. Only concrete action can help citizens regain their faith in public governance, whose reputation has taken such a battering from this report.