In a recent interview (March 26) Health Minister Chris Fearne was asked whether he was worried about the growing perception of corruption in Malta.
He told his interviewer he was right in saying ‘perception’ because “what’s happening is that we’ve been overenthusiastic in wanting to get results quickly so we may have not given enough importance to governance”.
Fearne said this was just a perception because the checks and balances were all in place. “I think it’s a question of governance rather than corruption. I don’t like the fact that there is this perception but I don’t think it’s justified.”
I will refer Fearne to some of the most notorious cases which happened under Joseph Muscat’s watch since March 2013 and quote comments by the National Audit Office (NAO).
The Australia Hall scandal: On October 2013, the Lands Department dropped a court case against the Labour Party about Australia Hall and other properties, estimated in the region of €10 million. Former Commissioner of Lands, Joe Bugeja, resigned his position as his department was never consulted about this and the Café Premier case.
In a report in March 2014, the NAO said: “NAO is of the opinion that the documentation retained by the Government Property Department and the law courts do not provide a clear indication regarding who took the decision to withdraw the Australia Hall case, as originally instituted by the Commissioner of Lands and when such a decision was made. In this office’s view, the onus of retaining such documentation with a view to ensuring transparency, accountability and good governance, rests with the Government Property Division.”
The Café Premier scandal: The government paid €4.2million for the reacquisition of Café Premier from its owners. In its report of February 2015, the NAO said that “of serious concern is the lack of documentation retained by the Government Property Department with regard to the withdrawal of its legal action against Café Premier owners instigated on December 12, 2012.
“In sum, NAO maintains notable reservation regarding the manner by which this reacquisition was made. The government’s failure to pursue legal action… resulted in the eventual withdrawal of legal proceedings without clear justification or documentation, which action detracted from the required level of transparency expected in such a decision.”
The Old Mint Street scandal: In January 2016, NAO published a report saying: “This expropriation was instigated by Gaffarena, yet readily facilitated by the Parliamentary Secretary OPM, Director General of Government Property Department and Director of Estate Management. NAO deems such collusive action as highly inappropriate, in clear breach of the fundamental principles of good governance, transparency and fairness.”
And it said: “This office established that the officials bearing a key role in this expropriation were the Parliamentary Secretary OPM, Director General at Government Property Department and the Director Estate Management.
Which of these cases are a question of governance rather than corruption?
“NAO arrived at the understanding that it was the Director Estate Management who assumed the primary role of negotiating with Gaffarena; however, it must be stated that the conclusion of these negotiations would not have been possible without the endorsement of the Director General of Government Property Management and final authorisation by the Parliamentary Secretary at OPM.”
The Enemalta hedging scandal: In a March 2015 report, the NAO said: “The NAO has reservations regarding the manner by which the decision to hedge unleaded petrol and diesel requirements for Q3 and Q4, 2014 was taken. Documentation reviewed by this office, which solely focused on the setting of targets, failed to provide a comprehensive account of the Advisory and Finance Committee’s sourcing of final approval and the subsequent placement of order with SOCAR Trading SA.
“Minutes of the Petroleum Procurement Committee meeting, dated April 3, 2014, indicated that the deal with SOCAR had been concluded following ‘ministerial direction’. NAO is of the opinion that documentation detailing final approval issue by the committee and the subsequent placement of orders with SOCAR Trading SA was incomplete. During 2014, Enemalta Corporation registered a loss of €8.16million with respect to hedging undertaken on crude oil and a loss of €5.5million with respect to unleaded petrol and diesel hedging,” the NAO report said.
The Casino scandal: In March 2014, NAO published its report ‘An analysis of the sourcing of Legal Services with respect to the granting of concessions to operate two casinos’. The report said that “according to the original evaluation, Filletti & Filletti Advocates was shortlisted as the winning bidder and recommended the award of contract, having submitted the cheapest proposal. Law firms Dingli & Dingli and GVTH came in second and third respectively.
“However, after the minister’s intervention, the first seven ranked proposals by the evaluation committee were re-ranked in a different order, placing Deguara Farrugia Advocates – initially placed sixth – as the preferred bidder. Filletti & Filletti Advocates, the firm originally recommended the award, was relegated to third place after Chetcuti Cauchi Advocates.”
The Workers’ Memorial Building scandal: An NAO report in October 2015, ‘An investigation of matters relating to the emphyteutical agreement between the Government and the GWU’, “established that between April 2014 and May 2015, the lease of part of the Workers’ Memorial Building to ARMS Ltd by the GWU was in breach of the government’s emphyteutical contract with the union. This emanated from the fact that the GWU did not have any shareholding in ARMS Ltd and therefore infringed condition (b) of the 1997 amendments.”
The alcohol in Dubai scandal: In its Annual Report for 2015, the NAO said “the hotel bill for a visit to Dubai by a ministerial delegation between 16 and 19 September 2015, included charges for alcoholic beverages, in the region of €756, approximately €318 of which were from a mini-bar”.
The mother of all scandals – Panama Papers: Writing in the Australian Financial Review, award-winning journalist Neil Chenoweth said Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri turned to Mossack Fonseca five days after the election to start setting up Panama companies and tried to open an account with nine foreign banks.
Now to some questions for Fearne:
Which of the above cases he considers as ‘perception’? Which one of them was attributable to their “overenthusiasm to get results quickly”?
How can he match his statement about “checks and balances in place” when in various cases NAO complains that highly important relative documents were missing?
Which of these cases are “a question of governance rather than corruption”? And, finally, why in nearly all cases, no one really paid his due price for committing such outright despicable actions?
In the absence of a decent reply to these questions, one can come to his own conclusions.
Jean Pierre Debono is the Nationalist Party deputy secretary general and a candidate on the seventh electoral district.