‘Will to fight corruption missing’

MP Alfred Sant claimed yesterday that there was no genuine attempt to fight corruption. The model being proposed to fight corruption was weak and fragile. The process would also lack transparency. The commission against corruption set up by Eddie Fenech Adami had failed because it did not enjoy independence and the people appointed to it were either PN partisans or timid during the carrying out of their work.

Speaking during the debate in second reading of the Bill amending the Permanent Commission Against Corruption Act, Dr Sant said the entity would lack transparency while being subjected to internal negotiations and political exigencies. While several people would be required to participate in the investigation process, it was already difficult to find persons of integrity to investigate corruption.

Earlier, Dr Sant argued that one needed strong means to fight corruption, and whoever argued that corruption was not evident was either not living the reality or decided not to acknowledge it.

Corruption would never be eradicated if things kept going in the same direction. While the Bill attempted to fix what he described as “an institutional farce”, it would hardly improve the situation.

GonziPN had covered up the scandalous case of the Mistra discotheque during the previous electoral campaign.

The cry against corruption had always been evident in Malta. There had been a cry against smuggling in the 1960s and against abuses in land permits and construction in the 1980s. From the 1990s onwards, there had been a cry against corruption in government contracts, VAT and income tax.

Former Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami had argued that he who did not fight corruption was himself corrupt, yet corruption had increased.

Even Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Acting Public Secretary of Malta under Alexander Ball, had stated that the Maltese were corrupt.

One should indeed fight corruption and not simply pretend to improve the situation. “How many people were ready to investigate corruption?” he asked.

While the Mepa auditor had criticised the authority, no steps had been taken.

When there were allegations of corruption under a PN government, the commission had kept mum. It was financed by €150,000 a year from public funds, yet things had remained the same.

Throughout the years, the government tried to play out a farce by arguing that when appointing a head, the Prime Minister would consult the opposition leader. Dr Sant praised the opposition for not taking part in this farce.

It was futile to play the hypocrisy game: what was wrong should be investigated. He mentioned four particular instances of corruption: a particular minister was given Lm60,000 to Lm70,000 yearly in payments of earnest; a foreign company was contacted and asked whether it would be ready to contribute to the PN if it was awarded a tender; there was pressure to reveal the Treasury-appointed price of a tender; and the Fairmount Fjord and Fairmount Fjell conversions at the Malta Drydocks.

Before 1996, the Labour opposition had alleged several cases of corruption, but pressure had been brought to bear to cover everything.

For the fight against corruption to be successful, the commission should incentivise people to report any misdemeanour.

While the Prime Minister had described the opposition’s allegations as muddy, Dr Sant asked why Dr Gonzi had removed several people when appointing the Cabinet.

During the last electoral campaign Dr Gonzi had promised to allocate new plots at the Addolorata Cemetery, even though it was difficult. This was an abuse of power to obtain votes; in a serious country, this would have been investigated as corruption.

Thirty years ago the PN had promised to fight institutional corruption but the situation had only gotten worse, Dr Sant said.

Anġlu Farrugia (PL) said the commission could not have functioned in a transparent manner because of the way in which it was established. He recalled that when the commission had been established the PL had wanted it to be stronger.

Everyone knew there was corruption, he said, and yet there were no strong safeguards against it. One needed to put the public’s mind at rest by having a forceful body empowered to investigate corrupt practices.

While the opposition was to vote in favour of the Bill since even these amendments were viewed as a positive development, it would present further amendments at committee stage.

He criticised the way the two members of the commission were appointed and suggested that one should be nominated by the government and the other by the opposition. The commission could not gain the people’s trust since the members owed their loyalty to the government.

Dr Farrugia said the commission would also now be empowered to investigate corruption in the private sector, since there were people, who although they were not public officers and not politicians, still garnered a power of influence within society.

Even the mere thought that a person was protected by a party or the other was damaging to the country. In this regard, he also made reference to the proceedings instituted against a Żabbar PN local councillor who was being accused of corruption related to the issue of driving licences.

Dr Farrugia invited the government to consider the penalties and punishments relating to corruption and also to reconsider its position in relation to legal prescription for civil damages ensuing from corrupt practices. He referred to systems followed in Italy, Georgia and the UK in this regard, and said Malta too needed a model that would truly see a functioning commission.

The office of special prosecutor was of utmost importance and it was necessary that a person of integrity was appointed to this office.

He should conduct investigations cases without fear or favour. This person could be appointed by the approval of both the government and the opposition as this would give the special prosecutor objective backing.