Joao Alexandre Tavares Goncalves de Figueiredo – have you ever heard or met such a long and complicated name and surname? Don’t worry, I’ll come back to that later. On the morning of September 5, 2016, the Budgetary Control Committee of the European Parliament convened to hear the Cypriot candidate for the renewal of his mandate – nearly a formality – as member of the European Court of Auditors. The committee had to hear two other candidates – one from Portugal and the other from Malta – also for the same post.
The committee heard these three candidates in public sessions and later took a vote ‘in camera’ on the draft report on the nomination of the candidates. In each case, the result was announced immediately after the vote.
In the case of the Cypriot candidate, as expected, he obtained a resounding ‘yes’ with 19 votes in favour, one against and one abstention. The Portuguese candidate garnered a similar result with 19 votes in favour and two abstentions. As for our candidate, Leo Brincat, he just scraped through with 11 votes only in favour (one of which was Alfred Sant, who apparently was a substitute of a substitute!), nine against and one abstention.
What happened thereafter in the plenary session of the European Parliament at Strasbourg on September 13, is already history. Both the Cypriot and Portuguese were emphatically approved with ample majorities, while our own candidate failed the test miserably.
Part of the official text adopted after Brincat was ‘rejected’ by the European Parliament is the following:
“The European Parliament (i) delivers a negative opinion on the council’s nomination of Leo Brincat as a member of the Court of Auditors and calls on the council to withdraw its nomination; (ii) instructs its president to forward this decision to the council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the member states.”
Going through all the above-mentioned process in extreme detail, I think I came to understand why the Portuguese candidate passed his test cum laude, while our candidate failed to make it.
You would remember Brincat replying to questions put to him by MEPs during that grilling session. According tothis paper’s report of that grilling (September 6), Brincat was asked a particularly poignant question about the Panama Papers.
This is how this newspaper reported that instance: “He said that Minister Without Portfolio Konrad Mizzi should have resigned over the issue… ‘Let me be straight and plain. If I were in the same position I would have resigned from my post or even suspended myself over the whole affair. In politics, ethics are as important as questions of legalities and illegalities,’ he said.
I came to understand why the Portuguese candidate passed his test cum laude, while our candidate failed to make it
“When facing tough questions over the Panama Papers and the way he had voted in a no confidence motion in Dr (Konrad) Mizzi in the Maltese Parliament, Mr Brincat admitted he had no choice but to vote along with the party whip.
“‘I had no choice, because Prime Minister [Joseph] Muscat had instructed us that this was not a free-vote,’ he told the MEPs.
“‘In Malta we have a system which we have to follow. If I didn’t follow the party whip, I could have been expelled or suspended,’ Mr Brincat said.
“Confessing he had even considered resigning over the Panama affairs, which hit the higher echelons of his government, Mr Brincat said he decided to keep putting pressure on the issue from within.”
And now we arrive at the point where in the story we have to insert the aforementioned gentleman with the unfamiliar name. He was actually the Portuguese candidate along with Brincat.
Before they appear in front of the MEPs for this so-called grilling, candidates are asked to reply to a questionnaire containing relevant questions. One of the questions asks the candidates to state “the three most important decisions to which you have been party in your professional life”.
In his replies, Figueiredo mentioned the three decisions, one of which is really revealing. I take liberty to quote it in full, as he submitted it to the MEPs in the questionnaire.
This decision, taken in 2009, revolved around a state contract worth €798 million establishing a public-private partnership and which was declared illegal.
“In 2008, on the basis of a public competitive examination conducted by an independent selection panel, I was selected to be a judge at the Court of Auditors (in Portugal) and had to leave the government (where he was State Secretary for Public Administration in the Ministry of Finance).
“At the Court of Auditors I was given the task in 2009 of assessing a financially very substantial contract concerning a public-private partnership to design, build and operate a motorway. The process involved was highly complex from the legal and financial point of view, and one in which major interests overlapped: whateverthe decision there would have been political repercussions.
“When I drew up the decision that the court eventually adopted, I abided solely by the applicable law, observing the guiding principles of rigour and even-handedness, as is appropriate to the role of a judge. The decision, as I have said, went against the government in which I myself served.
“It was widely publicised and had far-reaching consequences to the extent that the court, when called upon to consider other contracts couched in identical terms, handed down rulings to the same effect, with the result that contract drafting and amending procedures, in some cases, had to be repeated.
“One point to note is that the decision which I drafted in my capacity as rapporteur was not challenged, although an appeal would have been allowable.”
There ends Figueiredo’s personal experience. Seen in the light of what Brincat told the European Parliament’s committee, this could have been a plausible reason why they had such a different result both in the grilling session and, later, in the plenary of the European Parliament.
As I see it, you only have to compare and contrast how both politicians acted when confronted with a delicate and difficult issue in which ‘their own government’ was an interested party.
Roy Disney – younger brother of the more renowned Walt – once wrote that it’s not hard to make decisions when you know what your values are. And, more recently, US First Lady Michelle Obama said: “You can’t make decisions based on fear and the possibility of what might happen.”
And, by the way, when the Portuguese was asked in the questionnaire whether he would withdraw his candidacy if Parliament’s opinion about him was unfavourable, he wrote in a non-hesitant way that “if the European Parliament were to deliver an unfavourable opinion on my appointment, I would feel obliged to withdraw my candidacy”.
Jean Pierre Debono is Nationalist Party assistant general secretary and a general election candidate.