Labour MP Evarist Bartolo yesterday challenged the Prime Minister to say whether he was ever approached by someone claiming there was rampant corruption at Enemalta.
Speaking at a press conference dealing with the bribery scandal involving the corporation’s oil procurement, Mr Bartolo put a series of questions to the Prime Minister.
He said Dr Gonzi had assumed responsibility for the matter when he stood by Transport Minister Austin Gatt. Dr Gatt, whose portfolio at the time of the alleged corruption 10 years ago included Enemalta, has denied ever speaking to oil trader George Farrugia about anything related to oil procurement.
Mr Bartolo did not give more details about the person who met the Prime Minister but indicated that it could have been the former PN President Frank Portelli, who recently said the Enemalta bribery claims were “the tip of the iceberg”.
Labour spokesman Emanuel Mallia, who also addressed the press conference, referred to this very statement by Dr Portelli to argue that he would have expected the Prime Minister to ask for more information when such claims were made.
Dr Portelli recently said that more information would be forthcoming should there be a Whistleblower Act. After that call, the Prime Minister declared he would be prepared to recommend a Presidential Pardon, which eventually was given to Mr Farrugia on Friday.
But Dr Mallia questioned the Cabinet’s involvement in the matter, particularly as the case could directly or indirectly involve ministers like Dr Gatt.
Maltese law, Dr Mallia pointed out, gave the Attorney General the power to protect from prosecution a witness willing to give evidence on corruption.
The effect would have been the same but the process would have been more above board, he argued.
Asked by The Times why the procedure should make such a difference given that Mr Farrugia was given a pardon, in return for all the truth on the case, Dr Mallia argued that Dr Gatt was likely made privy to the reasons why Mr Farrugia should be given a pardon. In his position, he should not have this information.
On this point, Mr Bartolo also asked to know whether the terms of the Presidential pardon, which was approved by the Cabinet on Friday evening, were the same as those agreed to by the Attorney General, Mr Farrugia and his lawyer, on Sunday evening.
The evening press conference followed an exchange on the scandal between the Prime Minister and Opposition leader earlier yesterday.
Dr Muscat said Dr Gonzi had become “directly responsible” when he “endorsed” Dr Gatt’s version of events.
He referred to e-mails published in The Sunday Times, in which Mr Farrugia discussed meetings he had with people he referred to as “Aust,” A.G.” and “the minister”. Those e-mails were exchanged with former Enemalta chairman Tancred Tabone – also under investigation – and a representative from Trafigura, which allegedly paid bribes on oil contracts.
Dr Gatt acknowledged that he met Mr Farrugia – a constituent and prominent entrepreneur from Ħamrun – but he yesterday again rejected suggestions that he discussed oil tenders with him or anyone else.
Dr Muscat, however, argued that before these latest revelations, Dr Gatt had given the impression that he only met Mr Farrugia in constituency meetings.
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, on the other hand, accused Dr Muscat of putting political pressure on investigators and reiterated his support for Dr Gatt.
He also pointed out that the Government had used the strongest legal tool to expose corruption – the Presidential pardon – showing determination to fight corruption no matter who was involved.