Clash over witnesses for Cachia Caruana hearings

The Opposition yesterday ob­jected in Parliament to the government’s position that a number of witnesses should be heard before Richard Cachia Caruana takes the stand at the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the censure motion against him.

Richard Cachia Caruana should not be the last person to be questioned

It has asked the Speaker to rule on the matter.

The government wants Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi to testify first, followed by a range of high-profile witnesses that include Luxembourg Prime Minster Jean-Claude Juncker and former Nato Secretary General Javier Solana, as well as former US Ambassadors and sitting MPs. Mr Cachia Caruana would testify last.

Labour MPs George Vella and Luciano Busuttil accuse Mr Cachia Caruana, Malta’s permanent representative to the European Commission, of bypassing Parliament in matters relating to the reintegration of Malta’s participation in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme.

They claim in their motion that a document published by Wikileaks showed that in 2004 Mr Cachia Caruana held talks with Nato officials, during which he discussed ways of reactivating Malta’s membership of Partnership for Peace, behind Parliament’s back.

The government has denied the claim, insisting that the talks were solely about Malta being given access to Nato documents.

There were expectations that Mr Cachia Caruana might be grilled on the matter by the opposition within the committee yesterday evening but, following a stormy meeting over the order of witnesses, the meeting was suspended.

Opposition whip Joe Mizzi requested the Speaker to rule that the vote on the matter could only be taken by the whole House by not later than June 18 – and not within the committee as demanded by the government side.

He said the House Business Committee only gave the authority to the committee to discuss the motion and not to take any vote.

The opposition had no problem with Mr Cachia Caruana producing witnesses but first he had to make his submissions to the committee and not the other way round.

Mr Mizzi accused the majority of members in the Foreign Affairs Committee of trying to hinder the main aim of the motion and of wanting to lead the debate in a manner that was not transparent.

Joe Falzon (PN) refuted Mr Mizzi’s allegations on lack of transparency and hindering. He disagreed the committee did not have any authority to take a vote.

Other parliamentary committees did take votes, he said.

Mr Mizzi replied that the House Business Committee had appointed the committee on an ad hoc basis to discuss the motion with no right to take votes but giving Mr Cachia Caruana the right to produce any witnesses he requested.

Mr Falzon informed the House that the committee sitting had been suspended.

At this point, Labour MP George Vella said the opposition had no objections to hearing other witnesses but these could be brought forward after the committee put its questions to Mr Cachia Caruana. He could not agree that Mr Cachia Caruana should be the last person to be questioned by the Committee.

This was unacceptable, Dr Vella said, and the opposition would not budge from its position.

He knew that Mr Speaker and other MPs cherished Parliament’s right to scrutinise the action taken by any government employee. This scrutiny could not be reduced to a rubber stamp because the government, with its majority, could do anything it liked. In that case parliamentary committees might as well be disbanded.

Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg remarked that parliamentary committees regulated their own proceedings including votes and decisions taken by them. The Public Accounts Committee decided who was to appear before it and when.

Interjecting, Mr Mizzi said the decision taken by the House Business Committee was binding. He requested the Speaker to take a look at the opposition’s rights within that committee.

He added that the Foreign Affairs Committee regulated its proceedings according to the Standing Orders. This meant that it could move a motion in committee. Regulation of proceedings had to be decided by the committee.

Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Francis Zammit Dimech confirmed that the sitting had been suspended and that he would abide by the Speaker’s ruling. It was evident that no consensus could be reached in the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr Speaker Michael Frendo said that he would be giving a ruling at another sitting.