Four months after the introduction of the new bus operator in 2011, then Transport Minister Austin Gatt faced a motion of no confidence in Parliament.
The Opposition called for Dr Gatt’s head and that of his political appointees because the reform piloted by his ministry had failed.
It was a veritable summer of discontent for commuters, and four months after the launch the new bus system had to be overhauled once more.
During the parliamentary debate that focused on political responsibility, then Opposition spokesman George Vella had cited a hypothetical example of how responsibility could be shouldered.
He said that if a train crashed in Scotland it was the minister in London who resigned.
“He resigns not because he would have been driving the train himself but because he understands political responsibility and shoulders it.”
This statement with slight modifications could come back to haunt the government of which Dr Vella now forms part in view of the shooting incident involving the security driver of Home Affairs Minister Manuel Mallia.
The minister has refused to resign, saying he was not present and never gave any orders that precipitated the incident or the subsequent behaviour of the police at the scene of the crime.
Political accountability has often been used and abused by politicians on both sides of the divide depending on who was expected to shoulder it.
The Sunday Times of Malta looks back at various cases in recent years where the debate on political accountability has cropped up.
Comparing and contrasting how politicians spoke over the years provides a telling experience on standards in public life.
Mistakes made in ‘good faith’
January 28, 1998
Parliamentary statements linked to resignation of former Labour justice minister Charles Mangion (left).
Former justice minister Charles Mangion
“I resigned as minister because correctness demands that I had to assume political responsibility for a mistake, even if made in good faith as was the case in this instance.”
Then Prime Minister Alfred Sant
“I understand and appreciate the reasons that led to your resignation; none of them shame you; on the contrary, I feel they bear witness to the great respect owed you for the unique way in which you showed how public and political accountability should be practised.”
The case
Charles Mangion was justice minister and approved a presidential pardon for a man convicted of drug possession. The pardon allowed the man to be released a month earlier to be able to enjoy Christmas with his family. The decision was based on the information given to him by the police and civil servants that never indicated the man had other pending criminal cases. Dr Mangion had not consulted Cabinet despite an internal government memo that demanded such consultation when pardons involved drug related cases. Prime Minister Alfred Sant had felt the pardon contrasted with the Labour Party’s past criticism of pardons granted by the former Nationalist administration.
Abdication of responsibility
January 26, 2012
Motion of no confidence in the government presented by the Labour Opposition.
Joseph Muscat, then Opposition leader
“The Prime Minister [Lawrence Gonzi, right] did not make the responsible choice and call a vote of confidence in his government to remove uncertainty in the country... and if the Prime Minister abdicated from his role to remove uncertainty, I have no problem being on the receiving end of nine hours of abuse, but I shoulder my responsibilities... this is a government with a wait-and-see Prime Minister.”
The case
In the aftermath of the Budget’s approval, PN backbencher Franco Debono had threatened to withdraw support for his government claiming the Prime Minister had not lived up to his pledge to implement certain changes.
The Labour Opposition had filed the motion of no confidence, claiming it wanted to verify whether the government did have the necessary backing to ensure stability in the country. Dr Debono had abstained and the motion was defeated by the Speaker’s casting vote.
Ministerial responsibility
November 4, 2011
Parliamentary debate on a motion of no confidence in former transport minister Austin Gatt, right
Jose Herrera, PL
“Many people in Malta, unfortunately, have gotten used to a Parliament that is a rubber stamp for all that the executive does. Over the years, after independence, we have got used to a system whereby a government, even if it has a slim majority in Parliament, will take things for granted... it comes to Parliament with almost no need to consult with its backbench and rides roughshod over everyone.”
Charles Mangion, PL
“We have a situation where a landmark reform failed in every aspect. Is it possible nobody will assume responsibility [for this failure]?”
George Vella, PL
“I believe Austin Gatt was very responsible. He realised what happened and offered his resignation. I believe it was the Prime Minister [Lawrence Gonzi] who acted irresponsibly not to accept the resignation. I wish the Prime Minister could give us the reasons why he did not accept the minister’s resignation, which is normal practice all over Europe and the world.
“In democratic parliaments, if a train crash happened in Scotland, a minister would resign in London. And he resigns not because he would have been driving the train himself but because he understands political responsibility and shoulders it. It does not mean that a minister who resigns on such matters will be excluded forever from a Cabinet post.”
Lawrence Gonzi, then Prime Minister
“Dr Gatt offered to resign and I did not accept it because we must all shoulder responsibility for this reform to make it a success... don’t tell me that a train crash in which people die, causing a disaster, is the same as a reform that is still a work in progress and which we are trying to implement in the people’s best interest.”
Clyde Puli, PN
“I will vote against this motion presented by the Labour Party not only because the reform was conceptually sound, despite the defects in its implementation, but also because the call for Austin Gatt’s resignation is nothing more than a sorry attempt to get rid of a political rival who has proved to be a visionary and doer throughout his political career.”
Franco Debono, PN
“According to the Constitution politicians have a certain level of responsibility... a person can do what he likes with things that belong to him; he can use or abuse as he likes, he can be spendthrift, start again and do as he pleases within the limits of the law. But in public matters the rules are somewhat different. A minister does not have an unlimited number of chances to do things the right way.”
The case
The Opposition Labour Party filed a motion of no confidence in Transport Minister Austin Gatt, who piloted the public transport reform. The new bus service run by British company Arriva started operating in July 2011 but the new routes led to a summer of discontent as commuters suffered interminable delays at bus stops and had to endure lengthy journey times.
Nationalist backbencher Franco Debono had abstained on the vote, forcing the Speaker to cast his vote against the motion, saving Dr Gatt’s political skin.
‘In politics to do the right thing’
September 23, 2010
Letter of resignation by former justice parliamentary secretary Chris Said (right).
Chris Said, PN
“I am in politics to do the right thing even if it means the end of my political career. I am at peace with myself since I know I did nothing wrong... This was a genuine mistake [he was accused of perjury after giving testimony as a lawyer] which had absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the case. Even though this serious accusation is based on something frivolous that has nothing to do with my political work, I have applied the highest ethical standards and resigned my post.”
The case
Chris Said was Parliamentary Secretary for Justice when a court ordered the Police Commissioner to initiate criminal proceedings against him for allegedly lying under oath when testifying during a child custody case.
The case revolved around evidence that Dr Said gave in his professional capacity as a lawyer before his appointment as parliamentary secretary. Dr Said’s testimony related to a sequence of events, which he had to remember from two years earlier while still the woman’s lawyer.
In his resignation letter, which was accepted by then Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, Dr Said insisted he had done nothing wrong and was stepping down in order to put up the best possible defence.
Dr Said was reappointed to the executive when the court cleared his name.
‘Some people can do as they please’
July 18, 2007
Motion of no confidence in then Transport Minister Jesmond Mugliett (right) filed by the Labour Opposition.
Alfred Sant, then Opposition leader
“Every one of us in here must shoulder responsibility for his actions. It can be Joseph sold by his brothers, it can be St Paul or Judas... from this emerges the principle of transparency, accountability and efficiency. This is why people are disgusted because they are feeling that while certain people can do as they please, others are left by the wayside and those who should shoulder their responsibility are not doing so... this motion of no confidence in Mr Mugliett is tied precisely to what people are feeling.”
Lawrence Gonzi, then Prime Minister
“I believe that what we are debating tonight is more than just a motion of confidence in Mr Mugliett. It is an issue that as MPs we should give due regard before speaking in Parliament; respect towards the truth and not a distortion of it... Did Mr Mugliett do anything to stop this decision [the dismissal of two authority employees]? No. It was under Mr Mugliett’s watch that these two were dismissed. And so by what warped imagination can somebody come here and accuse Mr Mugliett of complicity in this case? In all this I cannot find one reason to say there was a breach in the code of ethics.”
The case
The minister had intervened to stop the dismissal of two transport authority employees accused of corruption. The lawyers of the two workers had requested a presidential pardon. Jesmond Mugliett had asked the authority CEO to hold the dismissal until the presidential pardon was decided.
Mr Mugliett defended his actions saying it was he who initiated the investigations that led to criminal proceedings and when the presidential pardon was decided did not interfere with the dismissal process. The Opposition had argued Mr Mugliett’s position was untenable, accusing him of complicity in corruption.
A tale of two bullets
November 19
Home Affairs Minister Manuel Mallia’s security driver, PC Paul Sheehan, fires two shots and hits the car of Briton Steve Smith after the latter crashes into the ministerial car. A government statement says Mr Sheehan fired “two warning shots in the air”.
November 20
Dr Mallia holds press conference and retracts the warning shot statement, confirming the bullets hit the car. Mr Sheehan is suspended. Prime Minister Joseph Muscat expresses anger and disgust at the shooting. The Opposition says there was an attempted cover-up and calls for Dr Mallia’s resignation.
November 22
Dr Muscat says inquiry board will investigate cover-up claims and invites the Opposition leader to appoint head.
November 23
The Opposition shoots down request, insists political responsibility is the Prime Minister’s to shoulder.
November 24
Opposition leader Simon Busuttil says Dr Muscat has lost moral leadership during the Budget reaction speech. In Parliament, Dr Mallia denies covering up for anyone or ordering anyone to perform a cover-up. Mr Sheehan is hospitalised after incident at his mother’s house as magistrate conducts onsite inquiry. Government appoints retired judges Alberto Magri, Joseph Camilleri and Philip Sciberras to investigate.
November 25
In Parliament Dr Mallia says he was not consulted about, nor had seen, the contentious statement on the shooting incident before its release. In the Budget reaction speech, Dr Muscat says he will wait for inquiry findings and will protect no one.
November 26
Mr Sheehan is charged with attempted murder.
November 28
Times of Malta reveals two women had filmed the incident and a mysterious man had asked for the footage.
The next edition of Times Talk will discuss political accountability. It will be transmitted on Tuesday at 6.50pm on TVM.