There must be something wrong when a Labour MP stands up in Parliament to object to being called by this newspaper exactly what he is, a Labour MP.
Joseph Sammut has taken exception to an article in this newspaper titled ‘Gaffarena calls Labour MP Sammut as witness’ and dedicated a whole adjournment speech to tell us that what he does in his private practice has nothing to do with his parliamentary work and that the two should be kept separate.
Then, totally oblivious to the irony, he used parliamentary privilege to reply in detail to something that took place in his private practice as a lawyer, even saying that he had his client’s consent to do so.
The issue concerns a letter he wrote on behalf of Marco Gaffarena and his wife asking the Land Department to consider exchanging his now notorious half-property ownership in Old Mint Street, Valletta, with some other property Mr Gaffarena wished at the time. Dr Sammut thinks that the letter is an entirely private matter, a simple procedural exchange that concerns no one. It is not, and for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the Gaffarena property deal in Valletta has grown to become one of the biggest scandals to rock the current administration. Dr Sammut belongs to that same government and the fact that his letter was part of a process that eventually led to the Gaffarena scandal is of great significance, especially because he is a Labour MP.
Secondly, any information on the case is of public interest. In a way it is irrelevant whether Dr Sammut’s letter asked for expropriation or land exchange. It is in the public interest to know the full sequence of events that led to the Gaffarena debacle that cost the State coffers over €3 million. Labour MP Sammut, as a lawyer, was a part of that process.
Thirdly, and most importantly, Dr Sammut must realise that he is a public figure and it is of public interest whatever he does in Parliament, in his private life and in his office. He is accountable for his every action to the electorate that has shown trust in him. He cannot separate his private profession from his parliamentary role.
But Dr Sammut’s thwarted thinking does not stop there. He does not have a clear idea how the press operates, as otherwise he would not have asked the Speaker of the House to make a formal request to “whoever is responsible for the surveillance of journalists”. There is no surveillance other than the law, and that is how it should be. It is called freedom of the press.
A newspaper that operates in such freedom does not carry articles to “mislead”, as Dr Sammut claims, or to mud sling. Nor does it have a “motivation” behind an article other than to inform its readers on current issues like the Gaffarena scandal. He appears to have difficulty understanding that.
The Labour MP thinks that the country has reached a point where “measures” are needed “on such reports”. He does not specify what measures he has in mind, which is probably good, for him.
Dr Sammut says that “in a legal office, you don’t find saints”, and he could not be expected to do due diligence on every client that walks in. That is his choice, but then there may be a political price to pay for every letter he chooses to sign.
Incredibly Dr Sammut also said: “The House needs protection… Such reports should not be made…. Amateurs should find a job elsewhere.”
Presumably those same words apply to some MPs as well.