Michael Falzon did the honourable thing last night when he resigned as parliamentary secretary for planning and simplification of administrative processes. He did so right after the Auditor General’s report on the expropriation of part of a property in Valletta was tabled in Parliament.
The National Audit Office dealt a devastating blow to Dr Falzon and his set-up when it concluded: “The NAO is of the opinion that this expropriation was instigated by [Mark] Gaffarena, yet readily facilitated by the PS OPM [Parliamentary Secretary at the Office of the Prime Minister], DG GPD [the director general at the Government Property Department] and DEM [the director estate management]. The NAO deems such collusive action as highly inappropriate, in clear breach of the fundamental principles of good governance, transparency and fairness. Although the NAO noted serious shortcomings in the GPD’s management of this expropriation process, this would not have been possible without the authorisation provided by the PS OPM.”
The report also noted that, although the only evidence at hand indicated Dr Falzon’s role was limited to the authorisation of minutes prepared by the GPD, “this was pivotal for the expropriations to go through”.
It pointed out that Dr Falzon “failed to question whether any public purpose was to be served by this expropriation and merely insisted adherence to the appropriate legal parameters and that values were reasonable. Insistence on these two requirements does not exculpate the PS OPM from failing to ask the most basic yet most essential question, that is: what public purpose was to be served through the government’s acquisition of two undivided shares in 36, Old Mint Street?”
Dr Falzon insisted he had nothing to do with the matter and then opted to employ the best form of defence: attacking the Auditor General. The NAO’s report, he charged, was confusing, at times saying he had not been involved and elsewhere commenting he interfered too much. He went further, saying the Auditor General sounded like the leader of the Opposition.
The Auditor General, it bears pointing out – though Dr Falzon, as a lawyer, a politician, an outgoing junior member of the Cabinet and a former Labour deputy leader needs no reminding – is a constitutional officer. Also, Labour itself had pledged in its electoral manifesto to strengthen the AG’s office by giving him more powers to investigate.
Thus, the reaction by Dr Falzon yesterday was hardly what one would have expected from a person in his position trying to defend himself from such an incriminating report.
The reports carried by this newspaper and The Sunday Times of Malta over the past months on the way the expropriation of parts of the house took place left very little doubt that not everything was above board. Now all the details are out.
Given the Auditor General’s findings, Dr Falzon should have gone further and also vacated his seat in Parliament. His presence is a millstone around both the government’s and the party’s necks.
The fact that he has been allowed to remain is a huge indictment of Prime Minister Joseph Muscat for two main reasons.
To start with, Dr Muscat promised “politicians who would be answerable for their actions and who would ensure they behaved in a transparent manner”.
Secondly, the parliamentary secretariat headed by Dr Falzon formed part of the Office of the Prime Minister.
So who else should carry the can? Where does the buck stop exactly?