While commending Justice Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici for his amendments aimed at strengthening anti-corruption measures, opposition spokesman on justice José Herrera claimed on Tuesday that transparency and accountability have been lacking during the past 25 years.

Speaking during the debate on the Permanent Commission against Corruption (Amendment) Bill, Dr Herrera said this commission did not function and did not deliver. So much so that even the minister felt he had to re-address the issue and felt that the proposed amendments would again give credibility to the commission, formed at a time when the PN promised it would eliminate all corruption form the country.

He criticised the late Dr Guido De Marco and Dr Eddie Fench Adami who had based their electoral campaigns on the slogan of “no corruption”. But this was not eradicated.

Dr Herrera urged his reshuffled shadow cabinet colleagues not to continue to focus only on “bread and butter issues” but to concentrate on issues such as corruption because these were important for the well being of the country. The new Labour had to deal with what was of essence to democracy.

The PL has lost its confidence in the commission, especially because its members were appointed. He said these were not independent as they were appointed and could be removed by the government which they were to investigate. How could they carry out an impartial investigation of the government if they were completely dependent it?

When appointed, the terms of reference of this commission were to investigate instance of corruption which allegedly took place under Labour governments of the 80s. There were three cases which were decided under Judge Victor Borg Costanzi which found government guilty. However, since then, in no other case of the 380 investigations was the government found guilty.

Statistics showed people that no longer had confidence in this body. So much so that applications for investigation by ordinary citizens dropped to just one in 2008 and another one in 2009. There were 48 cases in 1993 and 66 in 1994. Moreover, the court decided 500 cases where it found political discrimination against Labour supporters. He said he could not understand how the commission had been silent while court was handing down these judgments

Dr Herrera accused the government of not acting democratically with regard to the inter-departmental enquiries. It was completely unjust and unethical, he said, that departments carried out an internal enquiry at the same time as a magisterial enquiry was underway. Such a practice was obstructing the course of justice. Furthermore, it was always the same person that carried out the departmental enquires and therefore it was no wonder the government was always absolved.

Judge Lino Farrugia Sacco, who chaired this commission under a Labour government, was removed from office as soon as the Nationalists took over in 1998.

Dr Herrera claimed the position in Malta was no different from that of the Jacques Chirac case in France. Indeed, nepotism was a form of corruption and various public jobs had been created in to appease certain individuals.

Dr Herrera said that should evidence not be enough to incriminate an accused, the government should still have him transferred to another department. This would act as a deterrent. The commission should take on the role of a watchdog.

He said he would vote in favour of the amendments. He praised Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici for having “courageously” taken political risks when he had presented certain Bills, among them the one on the tribunal of administrative justice, which involved a lot of changes. There were instances when the government had presented genuine reforms with the aim of strengthening surveillance and these would have ensured transparency. However, one always came across people who hindered this process. He felt disappointed at the government’s lack of motivation to act against such situations.

The Bill served to re-establish the lost credibility of the commission, which should be independent of the government. Otherwise, it would not function objectively.

He said that his only worry was that it was the minister who dictated the coming into force of these amendments. The commission was currently investigating serious allegations regarding the Delimara power station contract and therefore, he urged the minister to implement the changes as soon as possible.

He agreed with the amendment that the chairman of the commission would be appoin-ted by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister because this instilled confidence.

However, to be more transparent, he suggested that the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition would each chose a member. He agreed that the President should be given executive powers to choose another chairman when the current one could no longer maintain his role. He underlined that the Commission for the Administration of Justice and the Permanent Commission against Corruption were two separate entities and thus they should not be involved in each other’s affairs. The commission should not have powers parallel to those of the courts since it functioned as a political watchdog not a court of law.

The Bill provided for a prosecutor to report any criminal offence to the executive police or the police commissioner. Should the commissioner not take any action, the prosecutor would be able to present the case in the magisterial court. When criminal action was taken, the prosecutor had the right to present himself as parte civile in the procedures.

Dr Herrera said that at times a particular case might not necessarily be considered as a criminal offence, yet, there might have been political implications. He said that the commission should draw a report and present it to Parliament so that there would be political accountability.

Parliament did not have the right tools to carry out such scrutiny. The Ombudsman and the Auditor General were in a position to do this. A third body such as the commission would make this scrutiny more viable.

Concluding, Dr Herrera said that the Opposition believed such amendments would make the commission more credible and so enhance its prestige.