Democracy works when there are checks and balances, when one institution scrutinises another effectively within the strict parameters of the separation of powers as dictated by the Constitution.
The parliamentary debate on MP Marlene Farrugia’s motion proposing that a parliamentary committee scrutinises the secret companies of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff was an opportunity for answers to be provided on why there was a need for these complex financial set-ups.
Straight answers are desperately needed, not for any political gain for the Opposition but because our country needs satisfactory explanations. The government shot down the opportunity for answers to be provided. In doing so it dented the confidence shown in our institutions.
During the debate on Farrugia’s motion, not only were no adequate reasons given for the fact that a minister and a chief of staff opened companies through the notorious Mossack Fonseca in Panama a few days after they took office, but the speakers from the government side all repeated the same evasive formula in their speeches.
They started off in false humility, saying that mistakes had been committed, without specifying what those mistakes were. They then highlighted the positives of the government, such as gay rights. Next they painted the Opposition as negative, and spoke of their leader as someone who does not rush into taking decisions. The speakers even repeated the same idiomatic expressions about blind kittens, and all casually concluded that it was time to move on.
Shockingly, they never uttered the word “Panama”. Neither did they make any reference whatsoever to Keith Schembri’s offshore companies. The repetitive formula leads one to believe that the speeches were prepared by a hidden hand.
A disillusioned voter would point out that all parties undertake a PR strategy in which the same arguments are repeated, but this is not a debate on whether we should buy cheap energy from continental Europe through the interconnector or whether we need a new gas power station. The debate was about the crucial issue of whether the Prime Minister’s right-hand man is trustworthy.
This government has taken the position that a person in a position of trust is not answerable to anyone
Another mantra repeated ad nauseam was that a second motion on the same issue results in double jeopardy. Apart from the fact that parliamentary censure is governed by different rules to court proceedings, there was, in fact, no first trial at all. There has not even been the most elementary form of scrutiny or investigation. We read about raids of offices in France, Panama and even El Salvador as a result of the publication of the Panama Papers, yet in Malta, the government believes it is immune from any need to probe secret offshore companies in Panama.
Evarist Bartolo stood out as being the only speaker who did not follow the formula, and I admire him for this. He brought up the important issue of corruption in that he called for an examination of our whole society.
However, his argument was flawed too. How could one call for a thorough examination of corrupt practices but then, when the opportunity arises to scrutinise the ownership of secret companies in offshore jurisdictions, one backs down? That which applies to society as a whole applies to senior government figures.
Another attempt at dismissing the motion was made on the basis that the motion wrongly described the chief of staff as a public officer. This observation was correct in that members of a secretariat from outside the public service are appointed to a position of trust and are not public officers.
A minister may be censured by Parliament and a public officer may be censured by the Public Service Commission. This government has taken the position that a person in a position of trust is not answerable to anyone. Is it healthy for our democracy that members of secretariats are not subject to any form of scrutiny or censure?
When in 2012 a parliamentary motion was presented to censure then Permanent Representative to the EU Richard Cachia Caruana, the debate went ahead notwithstanding the fact that Article 124 of the Constitution is crystal clear: he was not a public officer. He held the rank of ambassador and was not a career diplomat, which meant he did not form part of the public service as defined by the Constitution.
Yet the motion was debated at great length and Mr Cachia Caruana subjected himself to parliamentary scrutiny. Today’s Labour government ignored this precedent. At the very least, the Prime Minister, as the person who appointed Mr Schembri in the position of trust, should have subjected himself to the questions addressed to the chief of staff.
Our economic wellbeing is strictly dependent on the faith people have in our institutions and in government. The prevalent practice of not providing straight answers is jeopardising the economic success inherited from the previous administration.
If the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, and the minister dealing with multi-million privatisation contracts, have nothing to hide, they ought to make themselves available to parliamentary scrutiny. The orchestrated protection from giving straight answers on secret companies in Panama is ultimately a form of omertà.
paul.radmilli@gov.mt
Paul Radmilli is a Nationalist PartySliema local councillor.