When I google the term ‘conflict of interest’, the fifth item that pops up on my screen is an article about a parliamentary question tabled by the then Opposition spokesman for the environment Leo Brincat.

I don’t know whether this was a result of carelessness or Labour’s version of President Nixon’s ‘If the President does it, then it’s not illegal’

Back in 2004, Brincat had asked Austin Gatt about an alleged conflict of interest within the Mediterranean Oil Bunkering Corporation some time before the state entity was privatised.

Frank Sammut – the man at the heart of the scandal which engulfed Enemalta – was reported to be leaving the state-owned MOBC to become an independent consultant associated with the private company Island Bunker Oils.

Sources within the industry were concerned that this could mean that Island Bunker Oils would inherit some or all of MOBC’s supply business and be treated more favourably than its competitors in terms of obtaining storage capacity at the terminal.

Basically, what competitors feared was that the CEO of the state-owned company would be favouring the private company in which he had an interest. In other words, they were worried about Sammut’s conflict of interest between his role in a public corporation and his private interests.

The conflict of interest aspect may not have shocked the nation as much as the charges about receiving commissions, but at the time, it had concerned the Labour Opposition sufficiently, to bring up the matter in Parliament.

And then – before the election – as the true extent of the Enemalta corruption scandal unfolded – the parliamentary question was brought up again. The underlying message was, “Look, we flagged up this potential conflict of interest situation taking place under a Nationalist Government. We’re vigilant about these things. We mean business.”

Going on the basis of these declarations, you’d have thought that the newly-minted Labour Cabinet would do everything in their power to distinguish themselves from their predecessors in power.

If the PN crashed to defeat on the back of its jobs-for-the-(few)-boys and ‘klikka’ attitude and its scarce disregard for ethical niceties, it would stand to reason that Labour would do everything differently. However, there are some worrying indications that this is not the case. These indications are worrying because if Labour are starting as they mean to go on, then we’re in for a good five years or more of PN-like governance.

Take the recent flurry of appointments of consultants or nominations to various boards, to start with. The overwhelming majority of them are of Labour-leaning people (to put it mildly). That doesn’t shock me unduly. For the duration of the Nationalist Administration’s stay in power I don’t think that Labour exponents were given a look-in, and this is Muscat’s version of positive discrimination.

But then, there were a couple of slip-ups which show that Labour was hyper-vigilant when it came to snuffling out conflict-of-interest situations while the PN was in power, but they’re pretty relaxed about it taking place now.

When Robert Musumeci was appointed part-time consultant and personal adviser to Michael Farrugia, Parliamentary Secretary for Planning, whose responsibilities include Mepa, quite a few eyebrows were raised. Not because he isn’t qualified to occupy the post. By all accounts, he’s well-versed in planning matters and has ample experience in the field.

So there are no problems insofar as qualifications are concerned. But Musumeci is a much sought-after architect who will be retaining his private practice. How is this going to square with the fact that he will be influential in formulating policies which may favour his current or future clients?

Even if he is extremely diligent about taking off his private-practice hat before donning his consultant-to-Mepa hat, he will be running the risk of being perceived as having a potential conflict of interest.

There may be the suspicion that his performance in his guise as consultant to Mepa could be affected by his professional loyalty to clients. The mere perception of this happening will serve to tarnish Mepa’s battered reputation.

I don’t know whether this was a result of carelessness or Labour’s version of President Nixon’s “If the President does it, then it’s not illegal”.

In either case, it does not augur well for the good governance promised to the electorate.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt