Mizzi says he was denied right to prove minister was corrupt

Opposition whip Joe Mizzi charged yesterday that when in 2006 he was found guilty prima facie of a breach of privilege for having accused a minister of being corrupt, he had been denied the right to bring evidence of his accusation before the House.

Speaking during the debate in second reading of a Bill amending the Permanent Commission Against Corruption Act, Mr Mizzi said that under the Nationalist government, corruption was fought if it did not harm the party’s political interests. The Bill itself was the government’s admission that the commission lacked bite.

When the Auditor General had investigated the Delimara extension project and had concluded that there was smoke, the government tried to give the impression that it was fighting corruption. However, it did nothing of the sort. The commission should have also carried its investigations.

The way the Bill was presented was not enough to strengthen the commission. Nevertheless, a Bill strengthening the commission did not guarantee the struggle against corruption: there must be the will to fight corruption.

Mr Mizzi alleged that the commission was manipulated by the government. Corruption had become institutionalised but it had never found that there was corruption in alleged cases. While several people had provided information on corruption, the commission did not take any initiative to investigate not to hinder the government’s political stability, he said.

The government defended itself by referring to past cases to justify today’s corruption. Mr Mizzi argued that if one really wanted to eradicate corruption, one should refer to the past to prevent future corruption, not to defend present abuses.

During its term in office between 1996 and 1998, the PL was never accused of being corrupt because it had really taken effective measures.

When the PN was re-elected, proof of corruption was evident. Yet it had protected certain people not to cause political damage. While it had argued that it fought corruption, government departments were infested with it.

When water had ‘turned into whiskey’, everything was forgotten in time. A government authority, in which corruption was evident, had destroyed files and covered evidence instead of taking effective measures to bring people to justice. While two corruption cases were proven in Transport Malta, no one had shouldered the political responsibility. When prices of second-hand cars were falsified, no steps were taken because fat cats were involved.

Meanwhile, every public contract smelt of corruption. Had the government really fought corruption, it could have invested more in education and health and made more medicines available.

Mr Mizzi argued that one needed the will to fight corruption and if the government really wanted to fight corruption, it should not have presented a raw Bill. Government departments could not keep tolerating misdemeanors to protect certain people.

Winding up the debate, Justice Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici disagreed with the opposition regarding the commission’s performance. The Bill was another tool to strengthen the commission.

Speaking on parliamentary privilege, he said that certain allegations made by MPs were detrimental to the people mentioned. Indeed, certain people found it very difficult to rebut what was stated in Parliament. Meanwhile, there were cases where individuals against whom allegations had been made, were cleared by the commission, after investigating the matter.

Had the Auditor General found something illegal in the BWSC extension project, he would have reported the matter to the Police Commissioner, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said.

The Bill was unanimously approved.