Independent MP Marlene Farrugia has tabled a motion of no confidence in Parliament against Minister Konrad Mizzi over the now long-drawn out Panama scandal. The recent Cabinet reshuffle did not remove Dr Mizzi but instated him at the Office of the Prime Minister, albeit without a portfolio. That has changed nothing for the outspoken former Labour MP. She intends to go ahead with the motion.
It comes in the wake of a failed motion against the whole of the Labour government by the Nationalist Opposition, very much over the same issue and which saw all MPs on government benches rallying around the Prime Minister and defeating the motion.
The motion against Dr Mizzi is different to the previous one as it is far more focused and specific. It concerns a secret company the minister opened in Panama and owns through a trust in New Zealand. The explanations he gave for his financial structures were confusing from the very beginning, becoming less and less convincing as more details emerged through the Panama Papers leak.
Predictably, the Nationalist Party has said it will vote in favour of the motion while the government side made clear its MPs would be expected to vote on party lines. That puts Education Minister Evarist Bartolo, for one, in a quandary because he has made it amply clear that had he been in Dr Mizzi’s position he would have resigned. Party whip Godfrey Farrugia too appeared to come close to saying Dr Mizzi should go, reflecting internal party unrest over the Panama affair.
The obvious solution would have been a free vote on the government side enabling MPs to vote in a way that reflects the anger among their constituents who, surveys show, wanted Dr Mizzi and the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Keith Schembri, to go. Last week’s Cabinet reshuffle has defiantly reinforced their position.
Asked if he would allow a free vote, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat shockingly replied a free vote was only given on issues involving morality, conscience and ethics. He did not think the Panama scandal fitted the bill. In fact, it does, on all accounts.
The secret companies in Panama, at this stage, at least, concern political ethics. It is wrong that a minister and the Prime Minister’s closest aide, while in office, open an account in secretive Panama. That alone was enough grounds for immediate dismissal.
The Panama issue also concerns morality. It is immoral for a government minister to opt for a tax haven. It is immoral to say it would run family assets, when leaked correspondence later refers to monies from commissions and consultancies, and even from recycling and offshore gaming.
There must be government MPs who are still unhappy with the state of affairs which has done their party immense damage. Whether they would go as far as to vote Dr Mizzi out of office is doubtful. But, given a free vote, the issue would become a matter of conscience. A free vote would enable the electorate to see what their representatives feel in their conscience on this scandal.
Dr Muscat’s reluctance to move against his two closest colleagues has prompted the Opposition to suggest his own possible involvement. If that were the case, the remaining life of this legislature would be short-lived indeed.
If the Prime Minister’s ineffectual reshuffle is not the result of his involvement, then it is equally serious. His amorality and aloofness on such a serious scandal would be truly a matter of national concern.