Perception and hard facts

Lately, the Prime Minister was asked to comment on the fact that Malta was listed 45th out of 180 countries most perceived as corrupt. The Prime Minister replied that there is a difference between what is perceived to be the case and what actually is the case. He reiterated that, in fact, the country has all the necessary legal mechanisms and institutions to ensure transparency and combat corruption. In truth, however, is this really the case?

For years on end, the Labour Party has been insisting that the relative institutions mentioned by the Prime Minister are either not in a position to deliver or are simply refraining from doing so.

Contrary to other legal regimes, the judiciary in Malta is not endowed with the necessary authority to launch investigations ex officio it deems fit. An inquiring magistrate can carry on the relative inquiry only after being approached to do so by the executive police or by a private complainant. In the case of the latter, however, even here, the court's discretion will soon, unfortunately, be subject to review.

We have also experienced what to my mind are unethical tactics concocted by the government with regard to magisterial inquiries. In instances of magisterial inquiries, which could eventually embarrass the government, it has become the norm for the government to appoint ad hoc inquiries whereby, more often than not, the public will be faced with conflicting conclusions, thereby demeaning or rubbishing the conclusions arrived at by the courts. Over the last 20 odd years, we have seen that the government has been very effective indeed in shielding itself from embarrassment in this sense.

With a lot of ceremony, the Permanent Commission Against Corruption had been introduced on October 4, 1988. The declared intention for the setting up of this commission was to have a powerful, quasi-judicial authority that could act on its own behalf and guarantee transparency in the public sector. This commission, however, to my mind, would eventually prove to be a disappointment.

The PL in opposition has always stressed that the main flaw of this tribunal was the fact that its members did not enjoy the necessary constitutional guarantees and safeguards as those granted to the members of the judiciary. In examining article 3 of Chapter 326, we see that, practically, the Prime Minister has the power to hire and fire the members of this tribunal. Worse still, the members who are appointed for a five-year term are eligible for reappointment at the whim of the government. The bottom line is that we supposedly have a government watchdog, which, in turn, is totally dependent on that same government that appoints it.

According to article 4 of the said law, the commission is vested with the powers to act on its own initiative. It would be interesting to note, however, whether such initiatives have actually been taken in the aftermath of the very serious allegations of misconduct and abuse regarding the power station extension saga. As far as I am aware, no such inquiry is being conducted and this notwithstanding the findings of gross irregularities by the Auditor General.

I must also refer to what the statistics are telling us regarding the performance of this particular commission. Amazingly but true, during this last decade and even before, though hundreds were the cases referred to this tribunal, not one single allegation against the government or its agencies has ever ever been upheld. No wonder that over the last couple of years no one seemed to be bothered anymore to refer any new cases to this commission, which seems to be dying a natural death.

The Prime Minister has stressed the point that perception does not always signify reality. That might be true but, more often than not, perception is aroused due to actual circumstances and facts. It may be true that, on paper, we do indeed have all the necessary glorified institutions available to guard against corruption, maladministration and abuse. In fact, however, statistics are showing us that these are proving to be totally ineffective and this seems to suit the government very well indeed.

A new Labour government should and will address this democratic deficit and with priority.

Dr Herrera is a Labour member of Parliament.