Opposition leader Simon Busuttil said this evening said the Gaffarena case and other scandals involving the Land Department showed how Malta had a 'government of corrupt compromises' which stemmed back to the promises which Labour appeared to have made before the general election.
Dr Busuttil was speaking in parliament during the debate on a motion presented by Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon making it possible for the government to sell to tenants garages and shops which they had on long lease or emphyteusis.
Dr Busuttil said that in the face of the major Gaffarena scandal, Dr Falzon was behaving like it was all business as usual.
He said enough facts were known about this case for Dr Falzon to resign. Indeed, the opposition was surprised that Dr Falzon had not yet assumed political responsibility for what had taken place under his watch.
This scandal was extremely serious. The crux of the matter was that a man had been made a multi-millionaire overnight by Dr Falzon and the government, at the expense of taxpayers who were only given a raise of 58c.
What had taken place clearly had the blessing of the government. This was corruption with the government's blessing, institutional corruption.
Dr Busuttil spoke about how the case had evolved and said the compensation given to Mr Gaffarena for the ownership of half a property in Old Mint Steet - €500,000 and 43 tomna of sites selected by Mr Gaffarena - was 'exaggerated'.
Dr Falzon was expected to shoulder political responsibility and all those in the Lands Department who had touched this issue should be removed.
Dr Falzon's own admission that he had gone abroad with Mr Gaffarena; that he had met Mr Gaffarena before the deals were concluded; that Mr Gaffarena himself had asked for the expropriations; that Mr Gaffarena 'probably' chose the sites given in compensation and that a person in Dr Falzon's his secretariat, Clint Scerri, accompanied Mr Gaffarena to the Lands Department were enough reasons for Dr Falzon to resign. Dr Falzon had himself admitted having signed the expropriation papers.
"What are you doing here? Shoulder your responsibility and resign. This is institutionalised corruption," Dr Busuttil said.
Replying, Dr Busuttil said he was there doing his duty to make it easier for people to buy garages and shops.
Dr Busuttil said this scandal was not the first, and it revealed a whole web or irregularities within the government.
Why did Mr Gaffarena wield so much power within the government? What was the link between the government, the prime minister, Dr Falzon, and Mr Gaffarena?
Why had the prime minister keep responsibility for lands within his ministerial portfolio?
Labour MP Marlene Farrugia, when speaking about the Zonqor case, said the government had certain obligations.
It was clear that in the Gaffarena case too, the government had obligations. Clearly, as Toni Abela had let slip elsewhere, the government was prepared to secretly make people rich.
Dr Busuttil recalled that the Speaker himself, Anglu Farrugia, had warned before the election that the Labour Party was too close to contractors and big businesses, leading to concerns. He had said some of these people were close to the Labour Party's finances. Dr Farrugia had also told The Sunday Times of Malta that: 'my problem with contractors is that it triggers fears of corruption'.
This, Dr Busuttil said, was a government of corrupt compromises that stemmed back to before the general election.
His question was whether the Gaffarena case was the tip of the iceberg.
Did Dr Falzon know of other cases, involving this property and others? Was the Old Mint Street case unique, or were there other cases? Had Dr Falzon signed other such deals?
Could Dr Falzon not have realised that compensation of €500,000 plus 43 tomna of land for half a property was not exaggerated?
Dr Busuttil said the prime minister himself should also shoulder responsibility because ultimately, he was responsible for lands. If he did not known, he should resign for being incompetent, and if he did know, he should resign for his involvement
Concluding, Dr Busuttil said this case shamed politics and undermined people's confidence in politicians. The PN, he said, would issue a set of proposals to clean up politics.
MICHAEL FALZON REACTION: NO POLITICAL INTERVENTION
Replying, Dr Falzon said that there was never any political interference in this case, which was not the same which could be said regarding several cases under the former government.
Former Prime Minister Gonzi was even involved in valuation of property for a road in Mtahleb.
Furthermore, Dr Falzon said, the admissions which Dr Busuttil had spoken about showed how he was always honest and never lied. His trip with Mr Gaffarena was 13 years ago, he said, and Dr Busuttil was truly scraping the bottom to try to smear him.
He met anyone, including many prominent Nationalists.
But he never met any criminal under a bridge.
Dr Falzon also insisted that the valuation of the properties given to Mr Gaffarena were made by experienced architects who had served for many years under the former government. What was wrong in politicians relying on technical people? What did anyone expect, for him to do the valuations himself?
Near the end of his speech, Dr Falzon said much was being made of claims that the contract with Mr Gaffarena was concluded in a few months.
He pointed out that on December 1,2009, a lawyer for a private firm, LBM requested redemption of the perpetual emphyteusis on the site occupied by the Lowenbrau factory.
The contract was signed within 24 hours.
Jason Azzopardi (PN) asked if this involved expropriation. Dr Falzon said it did not, but it showed how certain request were handled with expediency by the former government when it suited it.