Never has the saying ‘A week is a long time in politics’ seemed more apt. Before that, the date of the election was the main question being bandied about. Now that pales in comparison with the gravity of the allegations that have been made.
The Prime Minister’s wife has been accused of being the ultimate beneficial owner of a secret company incorporated in Panama. There are allegations of huge deposits being transferred to a business partner’s account. The Prime Minister’s chief of staff is said to have received substantial amounts of funds from his own auditor. They are both alleged to have bank accounts at the same private bank which is also said to be the bank of choice of several Azeri PEPs. The bank chairman and the anti-money laundering officer take a non-scenic route from the bank’s quarters and are captured on film weaving about the badlands of Ta Xbiex.
Everybody turns into forensic accountant mode except for the one person who should be doing the detecting. That’s the Commissioner of Police, who resolutely stuck to his rabbit and “no comment” stance and became the subject of a thousand Facebook memes.
More allegations come out in dribs and drabs, there are calls for resignations, the financial services industry is jittery and the need for a resolution of the whole affair is strongly felt. This resolution should definitely not come about by way of an election, but on three levels.
Firstly, there has to be a detailed and impartial assessment of legal responsibility of the protagonists (if any) by the courts. That has already started by way of the ongoing magisterial inquiry. It is true that the public is disillusioned and lacks faith in its institutions – understandably the police force and the pathetic record of other enforcement agencies such as Mepa.
The courts of public opinion have terrible shortcomings
However, the magisterial inquiry is the only adequate forum for a dispassionate analysis of liability. While the protection of journalistic sources is vital, so is a calm weighing of all the evidence that may be produced away from the baying crowds and amateur detectives. The magisterial inquiry should not be undermined by people who refuse to pass on relevant information in their possession, so as to be able to describe the conclusions as incomplete or a whitewash.
The courts of law are the first avenue of resolution. But they will not substitute the courts of public opinion and there is no way from stopping members of the public from reaching their own conclusion. This too, is a reality that must be addressed.
The courts of public opinion have terrible shortcomings. An American commentator had this to say following a judgement in which a defendant (George Zimmermann) universally condemned by the public was found to be innocent by the courts of law: “The controversy surrounding the Zimmerman trial and the outrage at the verdict shows how courts of law differ from the court of public opinion. In the court of public opinion, perception is reality. Caricature and hyperbole are preferred to thoughtful deliberation. Facts are irrelevant. High-profile cases like this are always politicised by demagogues at the ready to play on the emotions of the public to advance their agenda.”
So – yes – we must take that into consideration. But public sentiment is not to be dismissed outright. The Maltese people are right not to feel comfortable with the superficial reaction of the Prime Minister with respect to the Panama Papers revelations last year. Giving Minister Konrad Mizzi another (equally prestigious role) in the Cabinet simply wasn’t enough. And that gave rise to the increased suspicions swirling around today. The unease of the public had to be addressed in a direct and transparent manner. It wasn’t, and the PM is suffering the fallout because of it.
Lastly, as a nation we have to decide on what we really mean by a ‘financial services’ industry. It seems as if we have suddenly woken up to the fact that there are politically exposed persons from other countries and people with unexplainable wealth investing in our jurisdiction. I don’t know why it’s news. The same type of investors have been around for a good number of years and there wasn’t much hand-wringing then. Is the present panic due to the realisation that our regulatory authorities cannot supervise effectively? Or is it an awareness that the term ‘financial services’ is a misnomer for something else?
drcbonello@gmail.com