A witness before the Permanent Commission Against Corruption looking into allegations involving Parliamentary Secretary Ian Borg clarified he had no evidence any money had changed hands with regard to property of the young politician. The witness insisted it was a matter of “economic advantage” and that his choice of words was based on terminology used by Transparency International.

Transparency International defines corruption as “abuse of entrusted power for private gain”. The commission cannot go by that definition. In terms of the law under which it was set up, corruption would only result if money had been paid or somebody was given an advantage for a permit to be issued.

Dr Borg would have been completely justified to protest his innocence had he been charged in court and acquitted. But he also happens to be a politician, indeed, a junior minister and, as such, he must also carry political responsibility, which goes far beyond the specific parameters or provisions of law.

The commission said that at a meeting with the Ombudsman, the Environment Commissioner and its chairman, it was decided that while the Ombudsman would look into procedural aspects and policy implementation, the commission would probe the responsibility and shortcomings, if any, of those involved.

It also quoted what the Ombudsman said in his report: “It is strange that Dr Borg chose a somewhat devious method to file the application when all he wanted was for third parties to act on his behalf during the processing of the application.”

He also pointed out that “No mention was made of taking up fresh land which was flagged emphatically as the main breach of policy” in a previous application.

Subsequently, the commission remarks that it “considers the Ombudsman’s report as part of the investigations before it in view of an agreement on this point based on technical considerations… This was done because, given his profession, his independent office and his court experience, the Environment Commissioner [an architect] was in a good position to scrutinise what had happened”.

So the commission is making the Ombudsman’s conclusions its own and pointed out that the Ombudsman had concluded there had been a deliberate administrative mistake.

The commission drew a very telling conclusion. Referring to the “devious method” comment made by the Environment Commissioner, it says: “If [such behaviour] falls within some other provision of the Criminal Code or under some other special law containing provisions of a criminal nature, it is not up to the commission to make any such declaration because its remit is limited to the provisions contained in article 6 [corrupt practices] of Chapter 326 [Permanent Commission Against Corruption Act] and nothing else.” So ‘corruption’ can have different meanings.

The Criminal Code and the Permanent Commissioner Against Corruption Act both have a clear definition of it. Thus, criminals know exactly where they stand.

Not so politicians, especially members of Cabinet. In their case, allegations made against them may not amount to corruption in terms of the law because no money would have changed hands and no favours would have been promised or made. But ethically, morally and politically they would still have a lot to answer for if, for example, they are involved in a case in which it is noted that “a somewhat devious method to file [an] application” was chosen.

Thinking otherwise would mean corrupting corruption in its wider meaning.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.