The Speaker of the House, Anglu Farrugia, ruled this evening that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) had the authority to demand production of the contract which the government had awarded Henley and Partners to administer the Individual Investor Programme (the citizenship scheme).
The ruling was requested by the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Tonio Fenech.
During a committee meeting last week, Justice Minister Owen Bonnici had objected to publication of the contract for commercial reasons. He also argued that the government was party in a case where another bidder was contesting the government's decision to award the contract to Henley The court, he said. had issued a decree saying the contract could be presented in court but not published. The government was bound by that decree.
The PN subsequently insisted there was no such decree, and in any case, parliament was sovereign.
In his ruling, the Speaker said it was not important whether or not a decree had been issued by the court. Parliament was sovereign and could discuss anything in the national interest. He quoted parliamentary scholar Dyson to underline that the supremacy of parliament over the executive and the courts was undisputed.
The committee, the Speaker said, was not subject to any case being heard in court and it did not need to consider whether or not there was a decree. Nor did it need to await the outcome of any case.
As to whether the PAC had a right to request the government to present the contract for scrutiny, this was a financial issue and therefore within the remit of the committee. This was a practice which had always been followed.
Standing Orders empowered the committee - not an individual MP - to request the production of witnesses and documents to assist in its deliberations.
Erskine May also laid down that it was the responsibility of the government to present such documents in a timely manner.
The committee therefore had a right to decide whether or not the contract should be produced and the chairman should ensure there were safeguards for the commercial aspects, security issues and the court case currently in progress.
PRIVILEGE COMPLAINT
After the Speaker read his ruling, Mr Fenech raised a breach of privilege complaint against Justice Minister Owen Bonnici, saying he had deliberately misled the committee by claiming that a court had issued a decree banning publication of the Henley contract.
Dr Bonnici said he had never intended to mislead the committee. Indeed, his arguments had led to this ruling, which would set a course for the future. The fact was that a company represented by two Nationalist MEP candidates was contesting in court the government's decision to award the contract to Henley.
He insisted that there was a court decree saying that the documents presented up to that point (February) could not be published and were restricted to the parties of the case. They included documents which he was sure would be needed in the PAC debate.
Mr Fenech said he had been ready to withdraw his complaint had Dr Bonnici apologised, perhaps because he did not know that the contract had not been presented in court and no decree about it had been issued.
The Speaker asked the minister whether he was acting on information given to him by somebody else.
Dr Bonnici said he was acting on the basis of information from the Attorney General's office. He never had any intention to mislead the committee. However even the documents already presented to the court such as the confidentiality agreement, were relevant to the PAC debate.
Mr Fenech said the ruling was given at the request of the Opposition, not the government.
The Speaker asked Mr Fenech if he was insisting on his privilege complaint in view of the minister's declaration.
Mr Fenech said he was prepared to do so if the minister admitted that the contract had not been presented in court and he had been mistaken. He recalled that in the past, (now minister) Evarist Bartolo had requested proceedings against him when he presented information in reply to a parliamentary question which was mistaken, and despite him having apologised for the mistake.
Home Affairs Minister said it was very clear that minister Bonnici had been wrongly informed that the contract was presented in court.
Dr Bonnici reiterated he never intended to mislead the committee. The decree he had referred to applied to documents already presented in court at the time, and not the contract. He had acted on information given to him.
Mr Fenech said he accepted that the minister had not intended to mislead, but he regretted that four days had passed, and he had stuck to his comments in all that time. Once he was now saying that he did not intend to mislead, and he was mistaken, the complaint was being withdrawn.