The growing controversy and scale of the Valletta expropriation deal that saw a man pocket over €1.6 million in cash and land for half a house in Old Mint Street raises a number of questions, not least who will ultimately be held politically responsible for this evolving scandal.
Two investigations are underway and until they are concluded, it cannot be assumed that there is corruption involved. It could be crass incompetence on the part of our civil service.
However, even if no abuse is found to have taken place, taxpayers would still be getting the short end of the stick, as happened already with the Café Premier fiasco earlier this year that cost the coffers €4.2 million. Whatever the outcome of the inquiries, a review of how the Land Department goes about doing its business is urgently called for.
It was Michael Falzon, parliamentary secretary at the office of the Prime Minister, who approved the Old Mint Street expropriation. However, there are reports that it was an official from his own secretariat who was involved in the dealings. That takes political responsibility to a higher level. Unfortunately, the code of ethics for ministers and parliamentary secretaries does not address the issue of political responsibility for people appointed to positions of trust.
The code, which was shamelessly kept under wraps for months, only says that, in appointing people, ministers should be inspired by merit and capabilities. These are fine words but in the real world political appointments in secretariats are prone to be conditioned by personal loyalty to the minister. It puts the onus on the minister to ensure s/he appoints not just people s/he can trust but also those that can be trusted.
The issue of political responsibility for such appointments has not just arisen but has been haunting this administration from the start. When the driver of former home affairs minister Manuel Mallia was involved in a shooting incident, the minister initially refused to take political responsibility and only eventually bowed out after immense pressure and a public outcry.
Even on less serious matters, accepting political responsibility for people appointed to positions of trust is still hard to come by under this administration, starting from the Prime Minister.
A recurrent thorn in the backside for Joseph Muscat is former tourism minister Joe Grima, his envoy to the World Tourism Organisation.
In his Facebook rants, he recently levelled harsh criticism at President Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca over her support for migrant integration and accused President Emeritus Eddie Fenech Adami of being the “greatest embarrassment ever” – an autobiographical quote if ever there was one.
His three-year contract stipulates that he may not express views that run contrary to government policy and, yet, when last asked, the Office of the Prime Minister declined to say if Mr Grima would face disciplinary measures. That makes him appear untouchable, making the situation totally unacceptable.
People given temporary appointments in the public sector in positions of trust are the direct responsibility of the politician who appoints them. They are entrusted to implement the minister’s policies but a minister is responsible for both his message and his messenger and should be answerable for both.
Introducing a provision to this end in the code of ethics, even at this stage, would be an incentive to ministers and parliamentary secretaries to truly follow the spirit and advice enshrined in the revised code, that is, to appoint their trusted men and women on grounds of merit and capabilities and nothing else.