Fellow columnist Michela Spiteri runs a website about all things legal called Without Prejudice. It’s a sort of layman’s guide through the labyrinthine legal world, never-ending law suits, contempt of court fines, conflicting judgments and the local courts. Recently she uploaded an interview with her uncle – the retired judge Victor Caruana Colombo.

Ministers and parliamentary secretaries are prohibited from engaging in private work for a reason

In one of the most interesting anecdotes to emerge from the interview, Spiteri describes what used to happen on the many occasions she visited her uncle and aunt in Gozo where Caruana Colombo was then the presiding magistrate.

Spiteri would invariably barge into his study and grab a piece of paper to scribble on to use as rough paper. Each and every time Caruana Colombo would stop her.

He had a ritual. He’d lift the paper toward the light to check whether the paper was watermarked or not, to make sure he wasn’t giving away government property.

Now, this behaviour struck me in its extreme scrupulousness. In the grand scheme of things I suppose it would hardly have mattered had the judge given away a few sheets of government-issued paper for non-work related purposes. It wasn’t going to amount to grand larceny and he could have claimed he didn’t receive much in the way of allow­ances. (In fact, he only received a measly petrol allowance).

Some people would even argue that the judge was entitled to use government-issued paper to make up for this lack of allowances – a tiny top-up of his wage. However, the judge didn’t quibble or attempt a loose interpretation of the rule prohibiting the use of public property for personal use. For him, there was a strict division, and there were no two ways about it.

I highlight this anecdote because it stands in stark contrast to many people’s perception of ethics nowadays. It seems that most people have a very fuzzy idea of the ethical guidelines that public officials must abide by, with the overwhelming majority thinking that rules are made to be broken – as long as it’s their lot involved in the rule-breaking. This has come to light quite clearly in the Franco Mercieca case.

The facts of the case have been public for some time. Basically, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Elderly continued to carry out private operations of a non-specialised nature despite having been given a limited waiver to carry out operations related to his speciality. Following newspaper reports about it, Merceieca announced he would not continue operating and cancelled those operations he was to have performed last week.

This news was greeted with resentment by many satisfied patients of Mercieca and Labour supporters. The general feeling – within this sector of the population – was that the PN, aided by the independent media – was coming down unnecessarily hard on Mercieca. After all, his professional medical expertise was being put to good use, and it was widely sought after by patients of all stripes.

So what was with all the nit-picking about a parliamentary secretary carrying out ope­rations? And if the Nationalists were on a scandal-seeking mis­sion hadn’t they look at the beam in their own eye?

Why didn’t they let Mercieca off the hook and hang their head in shame over the number of people who had been engaged by the civil service in pre-election year or the thousands of euros given in consultancy fees to Nationalist supporters, or anything meatier than Mercieca?

This is missing the point. ministers and parliamentary secretaries are prohibited from engaging in private work for a reason. And that’s to prevent them from being put in a situation where they may have (or appear to have) a conflict of interest. It’s not an academic discussion or a question of updating a code of ethics but a common sense safeguard to prevent favouritism or worse.

To give a concrete example – if minister X was moonlighting as a consultant and getting paid handsomely for it by his clients, wouldn’t he be inclined to favour them when he put on his ministerial hat?

Wasn’t this what all the hoo-ha about Tonio Fenech’s freebie flight cropped up? Because a minister or parliamentary secretary accepting gifts or remuneration from private quarters runs the risk of being beholden to the donor or payer. Even if he is the most upright of people, there is still the risk of him being perceived to be in hock to whoever is paying him.

And judging by people’s ever-increasing disillusionment with the political class, strengthening the perception that yet another politician is beholden to private interests isn’t going to help much.

One of the most unfortunate as­pects of these sort of contro­versies are the selective inter­pretations of the PN and the PL with their rea­ding of events depending on whe­ther one of their own is involved.

Back in the days of the Gonzi administration, Charlon Gouder was practically on a 24/7 stakeout near the Rabat offices of the Natio­nalist parliamentary secretary Tony Abela to see if he was engaged in private work. I remember One TV transmitting the recording of a telephone conversation with Abela and the comments about him being a part-time parliamentary secretary and a full-time notary. The reaction from the PN was rather muted.

Now the boot is on the other foot and the roles are reversed. As always – party ethics are elastic – stretching to accomodate their own and reaching breaking point when­ever an opponent is involved.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt