The latest claims in a sworn statement by a former executive at the Land Department on the Gaffarena scandal have reopened a festering wound and drew a police investigation.
The former director of estate management, Charles Camilleri said in an affidavit to the National Audit Office that during its investigation of the Gaffarena case he had been under severe pressure from Clint Scerri, the liaison officer with the Land Department appointed on a position of trust by former parliamentary secretary Michael Falzon.
“This is why I didn’t say everything, as I felt threatened,” Mr Camilleri said in his statement, made weeks after the NAO issued a damning report that led to the resignation of Dr Falzon from parliamentary secretary. The Audit Office has informed the Public Accounts Committee about this new development in the scandal surrounding the expropriation of half a palazzo in Valletta that saw Marco Gaffarena pocket a multimillion-euro compensation in cash and land.
Mr Camilleri said the liaison officer used to tell him to avoid mentioning him or the parliamentary secretary to the NAO so as not to put them in a bad light. Also according to Mr Camilleri, Mr Scerri used to speak in Dr Falzon’s name and tell him which parcels of land Mr Gaffarena was to be given in exchange for his property.
When Mr Scerri was told that such a deal would require the approval of a Cabinet member, he replied: “Michael will decide.” The implication was Dr Falzon had full knowledge of what was going on, something the former parliamentary secretary denies.
Dr Falzon has distanced himself from his former personal aide and insisted the latest revelations actually proved he had done nothing wrong. He has denied any wrongdoing all along but, whichever way you look at it, this affidavit draws him closer to the scandal because his name just keeps cropping up. Whether he knew or not, his appointed liaison officer always appeared to act in his name.
Mr Camilleri’s statement raises two major issues. First, how involved should a minister’s liaison officer be in the day-to-day operations of a government department and, second, what is the political responsibility of a minister when he appoints someone to a position of trust.
Political appointees are there to ensure the implementation of government policy within the departments that fall under their responsibility and not to get into the nitty-gritty of things, or worse, into individual cases. The Camilleri affidavit points to intense micromanagement of his department by this government, something that is both frustrating and, at times, humiliating to the professional civil service.
As to the actions of people in positions of trust, it is the minister who is ultimately responsible. He is free to appoint people who enjoy his confidence but then must answer to the electorate. These are direct appointments and not competitive recruitments. Thus, he must carry political responsibility for their actions.
It is therefore useless of Dr Falzon to distance himself from the person in whom he placed his trust because Mr Scerri was his responsibility and acted in his name, whether he knew it or not.
Dr Falzon has all along grossly mishandled the Gaffarena scandal. He even harshly criticised the NAO report in what was a clear assault on the integrity of that independent institution. Mr Camilleri’s statement does not make Dr Falzon come across any better. The hope now is that the police would go some way in unravelling what has become a very complicated, collusive knot.