The rejection of Toni Abela’s nomination as a member of the European Court of Auditors by MEPs from the European Parliament’s Budget Committee should serve as a wakeup call to the government to change the way it appoints people to important public posts.
It is an unfortunate fact that Joseph Muscat’s government has made many poor public appointments over the past three years, often taking into consideration Labour Party loyalty or convenience instead of whether the individuals have the proper credentials for the job. Certain choices were made simply to consolidate his grip on power with the Labour Party.
The European Court of Auditors is an important institution of the European Union. Its mission is to contribute to improving EU financial management, promote accountability and transparency, and act as the independent guardian of the financial interests of citizens. It is also responsible to check that EU funds are correctly accounted for, are raised and spent in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations and have achieved value for money.
The EU treaties provide that members of the European Court of Auditors shall be chosen from among those who belong or have belonged in their respective States to external audit bodies or who are especially qualified for this office.
With Dr Abela’s lack of background in auditing, his baggage from the ‘white block’ incident during the last electoral campaign and his somewhat temperamental behaviour in court, it is now evident that his nomination was tricky to say the least.
The European Court of Auditors says that in serving the EU’s citizens it must “be recognised for its integrity and impartiality” and that the ECA is an institution “in which its stakeholders can have full confidence”. In other words, members must be, and must be seen to be, whiter than white.
While no doubts have been expressed about Dr Abela’s personal integrity, it should have been obvious from the outset that this is a test he would have difficulty passing. His rather poor performance during the confirmation hearings in front of MEPs certainly did not help; neither did his attempt to convince MEPs that having practised law in Malta for 33 years, he had “held the government and public authorities to account for their actions” – thereby implying that this role was in itself, that of an auditor.
His nomination was rejected by nine votes in favour and 17 against, the highest number of No votes among three candidates who were rejected.
Dr Abela’s rejection also sheds light on the poor lobbying effort by the Labour Party and government among MEPs.
It is normal practice for candidates to meet their future interviewers on a one-to-one basis a couple of weeks before the confirmation hearings, especially those MEPs who belong to different political parties.
However, this seems not to have taken place in Dr Abela’s case, which shows an amateur approach by whoever was advising Malta’s nominee. One experienced Brussels lobbyist told the Times of Malta: “The votes show the lobbying effort was seriously flawed.”
This negative vote by MEPs has now created a problem for Dr Muscat and the Labour Party. Dr Abela, the outgoing Labour deputy leader for party affairs, was expected to step down from his post after getting the EU job. He has not yet resigned, but in the meantime Energy Minister Konrad Mizzi was last month elected by party delegates to replace him. What happens now?
One thing is for certain: Dr Abela should now withdraw his nomination to the European Court of Auditors instead of facing an almost certain overwhelming rejection by the European Parliament as a whole.
Dr Muscat, on the other hand, should once and for all stop his practice of putting political considerations ahead of proper credentials when nominating individuals to important public posts.