A marathon debate will take place in Parliament tomorrow on the Opposition’s no-confidence motion in the Prime Minister and his government over the Panama affair. Kurt Sansone asks: has the Nationalist Party picked the right angle of attack?

Joseph Muscat will be seeking a show of force in Parliament tomorrow when MPs vote on a no-confidence motion in his government.

The Prime Minister will want to show that he still has a firm grip on his government despite almost nine weeks of uncertainty caused by the Panama affair.

With Labour MPs like Evarist Bartolo and Godfrey Farrugia, who have publicly intimated that Energy Minister Konrad Mizzi should resign, pledging their support, Dr Muscat will get his victory.

But this is unlikely to blow away the Panama controversy that has hounded Dr Mizzi and the Prime Minister’s chief of staff Keith Schembri, according to columnist Martin Scicluna.

Although the Opposition’s decision to file a motion of no-confidence in the government rather than Dr Mizzi and Mr Schembri, is dead in the water, Mr Scicluna believes it is the correct strategy to adopt.

“It may have been tactically better to go for Mizzi and Schembri but the Prime Minis­ter’s authority is leeching away and this is why the government as a whole is being held to account,” Mr Scicluna says.

He believes the Prime Minister should have asked for Dr Mizzi’s and Mr Schembri’s resignations weeks ago. This in itself is also the subject of the no-confidence vote, he adds. “The Prime Minister’s judgement is being called into question.”

It is a view shared by historian Henry Frendo, who believes the focus of the motion is to shift the onus on collective responsibility for the lack of disciplinary measures taken against Dr Mizzi and Mr Schembri.

“A vote of no-confidence in the minister may have possibly been more effective since it could have potentially split the Labour MPs but the strategy could very well be to tar everyone with the same brush as a result of lack of action,” he says.

Although the debate is unlikely to offer anything new, he adds, some Labour MPs may still make nuanced remarks on their colleague while still voting with the government.

Dr Muscat was unmoved by recent claims that attempts were made by Dr Mizzi and Mr Schembri to open foreign bank accounts for money coming from recycling and online gaming operations.

Both have so far refused to resign, insisting they did nothing wrong. The Prime Minister has postponed his decision on their future pending the outcome of an audit into their financial affairs.

Tomorrow, Dr Muscat will seek to quell any speculation of an early election and attempt to show that the government has two more years of delivery ahead of it. The string of successes ranging from economic growth of 6.3 per cent to free child care, from an increase in pensions to lower utility tariffs, will inevitably feature in the marathon 13-hour debate.

Some could argue the Opposition’s choice of filing a motion against the government will give the Labour exponents a justification to focus on the administration’s work and sideline the Panama Papers.

The various possibilities following tomorrow’s vote in Parliament.

Political commentator Godfrey Grima begs to differ. He says the Opposition is right to go for the jugular in Parliament but has his doubts the debate will add any political capital to the issue.

“It is right for the Nationalist Party to go on record, in Parliament, with their claim that things are not being done properly, and in this way, nobody, in the future, can accuse it of inaction over the Panama debacle,” Mr Grima says

But he argues the PN and government have made their share of strategic mistakes over the Panama affair that have left people confused.

He says information given to him on an internal poll conducted by the Labour Party in the middle of this crisis suggests the government’s standing has been dented by less than four percentage points.

“Things do not change that fast and it is my impression people are probably confused but still want this government to continue to its full term, after which they will deliver judgement,” Mr Grima says.

It is no secret that the Panama affair has derailed the government for nearly nine weeks now.

The increased momentum in government initiatives witnessed in the first two months of the year quickly fizzled out as the Panama scandal deepened and took on an international twist.

How long this situation will last without having further consequences on the country is a question only the Prime Minister can answer at this stage.

Whether he will do so tomorrow, is another matter altogether.

Busuttil’s other options

Simon Busuttil had other options that could have created a crisis of conscience in some of the government MPs, putting more pressure on the Prime Minister to take action sooner rather than later.

• No confidence in Mizzi /Schembri

Although government has a comfortable majority, this strategy could have put certain Labour MPs in a quandary.

Konrad Mizzi. A vote of no-confidence in the minister could have been the logi­cal step. He is at the centre of the controversy. A similar scenario unfolded in the last legislature when a vote of no-confidence was presented in Austin Gatt and Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici. Dr Gatt’s vote did not pass but Dr Mifsud Bonnici had to leave office after the vote was carried.

Keith Schembri. Although the Prime Minister’s chief of staff is not an elected official, he enjoys a high profile public role that makes him privy to all the government’s workings. He has been involved in negotiations for every major investment project and coordinates action across the government. There is a legitimate argument to subject Mr Schembri to a vote of no-confidence and a precedent does exist from the last legislature when Malta’s EU representative Richard Cachia Caruana was voted out by Parliament.

• No confidence in PM

The same argument being made now by the Opposition, that Joseph Muscat must carry the can for having delayed removing Dr Mizzi and Mr Schembri, could have underpinned a vote of no-confidence in the Prime Minister. Although still an extreme option – removing the Prime Minister creates the political vacuum that could lead to an early election – it would have focussed the debate on the Prime Minister’s actions and not the government’s work. It is harder to defend Dr Muscat’s actions on the Panama Papers than to defend the Administration’s work that has had a positive impact on many people.