‘More measures needed to fight corruption’

The Permanent Commission against Corruption (Amendment) Bill was a small step forward in fighting corruption but more measures could have been taken to eradicate corruption from its roots, Labour MP Owen Bonnici told Parliament on Tuesday.

Dr Bonnici welcomed the Bill’s proposal in giving the President of Malta the right of using his own deliberate judgment in certain cases like when the position became vacant when the tenure of office had not been completed. He augured that authority of deliberate judgment be extended to the President on other matters.

He claimed that the government’s measures were not effective when the perception of corruption in Malta was so strong. Even former Archbishop Joseph Mercieca had spoken openly that people had been bribing Mepa officials to have development applications approved. It was customary for the Maltese to pay bribes to get a favour. He mentioned a number of cases that smelled of corruption or where corruption had taken place. These included the VAT saga, the BWSC and Fairmount contracts and the issue of licences by Transport Malta.

The Commission against Corruption lacked teeth. No one was found guilty of corruption in 424 cases out of which 63 had been concluded, 255 had been archived and six were still pending.

One must ensure the security of tenure for the special prosecutor who had to enjoy certain powers in investigating cases of corruption. The Advocate General had special powers in investigating cases of money laundering.

The government wanted to establish the concept of the special prosecutor without giving him the necessary powers. The powers given to him were similar to those under which private citizens could make a report to the Commissioner of Police. This was not enough, said Dr Bonnici. The only difference was that when a magistrate had been notified, the magistrate had to report to the Commission at intervals of not more than one month. This showed that the government did not have the political will to fight corruption.

Dr Bonnici referred to the BWSC contract where the Minister involved formed part of the House Public Accounts Committee which was making its inquiry. Minister Austin Gatt also strongly criticised the Auditor General. Was this the seriousness with which the government wanted to fight corruption?

The Ombudsman was also performing an important function but when he had tried to push the government, he had to face the music. In order to fight corruption one had to establish institutions that had the power to fight it.

The Bill would continue to foster a sense of frustration because the government lacked the will to fight corruption, Dr Bonnici said.

Nationalist MP Karl Gouder pointed out that the crux of the issue was the increased necessity for trust and from protecting Malta from corruption, the repercussions of which could adversely affect the country. The Bill was, therefore, another loop in the anti-corruption chain.

It was important that Malta kept up appearances, Dr Gouder said. The country needed to protect its image as a serious country – one that did not tolerate things being done incorrectly. Depicting a scenario where the rule of law fails, he said this would cause people to lose trust in their leaders, as evidence in neighbouring countries.

Malta had moved forward in this regard where systems were well in place, among them the Auditor General’s Office and the Public Accounts Committee. Malta, however, still needed to attain excellence by taking this next step through the implementation of this Bill. It was in fact evident that a country’s operations ran smoother when people expressed trust in the government.

Praising the Bill, he said its intention was to emphasise and ensure transparency and accountability, ensuring that none of Malta’s limited resources were going to waste. The government bore the responsibility to spend money diligently, while informing the public of the methods used in making good use of the country’s finances and resources.

Dr Gouder said that on one hand, one needed to fight corruption. On the other hand and further to that, one needed to protect those interested in joining in the fight against corruption.

This Bill would strengthen the rule of law and could lead to further investment.

The most important item in the Bill was the new step towards the concept of a special prosecutor, who would report and take steps to exert his executive powers in the fight against corruption to the extent of ordering the police to start proceedings, should the latter not do so initially. It was also important to introduce a certain element of fear, making people engaged in wrongdoings feel they were being watched. One needed to keep these persons aware that their corrupt status might be noticed.

Commending the Bill, Dr Gouder said one needed to look at it in a serious manner. The main message communicated by the Bill was to fight corruption daily.