Collusion between the government and the Gaffarena family was nothing less than a form of “institutionalised corruption”, shadow justice minister Jason Azzopardi said yesterday.
He was referring to the Auditor General’s conclusion in a lengthy report published last month that former planning parliamentary secretary Michael Falzon and other public officials had “colluded” with Mark Gaffarena over the expropriation of a property in Old Mint Street, Valletta.
Justice Minister Owen Bonnici had pointed out the report did not mention corruption but only collusion.
Logic dictates that Castille should be investigated
Dr Azzopardi insisted there was no difference between the two because the NAO’s conclusions, collectively, left no doubt that corruption had taken place.
He was speaking during a press conference in which he highlighted 20 points (see box) taken from the NAO report, which, he said, confirmed the government was caught in a web of corruption.
He called on the Police Commissioner to extend the investigation into the Gaffarena deal to the Office of the Prime Minister “where the scandal was first hatched”.
“Logic dictates that Castille should be investigated. Castille is a ministry and, at any ministry, the buck stops with the minister. In this case, the Prime Minister is the minister responsible,” Dr Azzopardi said.
NAO’s 20 points
The Nationalist Party yesterday underscored 20 points from the Auditor General’s report on the Gaffarena expropriation deal which, it insisted, “proved the government was corrupt
• Official minutes had been tampered with.
• The expropriation deal had been instigated by Mark Gaffarena and not the government.
• The quotations on the properties expropriated were made before Mr Gaffarena had bought part of the building.
• Former planning parliamentary secretary Michael Falzon had met Mr Gaffarena at the Auberge de Castille and sent the “kings of the Land Department” to accompany him.
• Mr Gaffarena bought part of the property knowing the government would expropriate it.
• The government did not consider alternatives to the sale of the section of the building.
• Auberge de Castille accepted Mr Gaffarena’s suggestion that half a building could serve as a museum or a ministry.
• There was no public purpose behind the purchase.
• Dr Falzon had failed to verify whether there was any public purpose.
• Nothing tangible was bought and only two one-fourth undivided shares owned by Mr Gaffarena were purchased.
• No minutes of the official meetings with Mr Gaffarena were kept.
• The Land Department had lied to the Auditor General when it said that only a quarter of the property was bought due to a shortage of funds.
• The politician signed to buy the undivided shares without verifying the public purpose.
• No value estimate was made of the building as a historical site, although this would have meant saving money.
• Two senior Land Department officials had expressed major reservations and concern prior to the deal being made.
• The deals were made at “phenomenal speed”.
• There was collusion with Mr Gaffarena.
• It was Mr Gaffarena who selected the properties he was given in return.
• Castille and Land Department officials declared they had not discussed the public purpose there could be behind the expropriation.
• The politician was criticised by the Auditor General for failing to safeguard the national interest.