The Office of the Ombudsman said today an investigation it carried out in 2004 involving MOBC and its CEO Frank Sammut, was not about corruption.
The investigation was made following a complaint by Alfred Pace, Director of Ronasons Shipping Agency. He alleged that the agency was being discriminated against by MrSammut, Chief Executive, Mediterranean Offshore Bunkering Company Ltd (MOBC).
At no stage during the investigation by this Office was there an allegation of corruption which would have necessitated referral to the Permanent Commission against Corruption.
The complaint
Ronasons had alleged that between 2001 and 2003, their principals (ship owners/brokers) were “repeatedly informed” by Mediterranean Offshore Bunkering Company Ltd (MOBC) to make use of a local competitor agent instead of them for oil bunkering operations supplied by MOBC, on the grounds that the bunker price quoted included the agent’s fee and as such MOBC reserved the right to nominate the agent they deemed fit for the job.
The situation persisted despite the fact that since April 2003 MOBC bunker prices no longer included the agent’s fees and this had to be paid by the ship owner/brokers directly to their local agent. Complainants pointed an accusing finger at the Chief Executive of MOBC.
The investigation
In support of their submissions Ronasons presented a number of emails from employees of the owners/brokers.
In the course of the investigation, the names of third party companies involved in oil bunkering operations supplied by MOBC were mentioned but in so far as the merits of the complaint, there was no involvement of these third party companies in the dispute between Ronasons Shipping Agency and the Chief Executive, MOBC.
Conclusion
The Ombudsman, Joseph Sammut, had, on 26th July 2004 reached the following conclusions in his preliminary opinion on the case:
“The investigation in this case was hampered by the time which had elapsed between most of the alleged incidents and go-ahead given (after several months delay) by complainants to forward the details of the allegations to MOBC. This delay may also have contributed to some extent to the non-response of the owners/traders to the queries from the Ombudsman.
On the basis of available information, even though suspicions remain on what really went on prior to April 2003 when MOBC asserted its right to nominate the local agent, there is however no definite and conclusive proof that MOBC acted discriminatorily.
The allegations of discrimination after April 2003, when MOBC changed its policy and left the choice of agency to owners/traders, are not substantiated.
There is one instance where MOBC clearly acted unfairly in respect of complainants when it indicated to Texaco/Famm that on next occasion they choose the right agent (and not Ronasons). This incident can be considered as evidence of the strained relations between MOBC’s Chief Executive and complainants. It added fuel to the latter’s suspicion of improper discrimination but one cannot generalise and reach the conclusions that the latter’s reduction in bunker business was caused by MOBC’s attitude or practice.”
The Preliminary Opinion was sent to complainants and to the Chairman MOBC.
Ronasons contested some points made in the report, but, after due consideration, the Ombudsman informed Ronasons as follows:
“I have given due consideration to the points raised in your letter and I do not consider that there is any fact or argument that has not been already considered or that would warrant further intervention/investigation from this Office. I therefore confirm my report as final.
This is without prejudice to any possible legal remedies that are open to you and to which you may have recourse.”
The case was closed on September 7, 2004.