The Permanent Commission Against Corruption (Amendment) Bill continued to strengthen the commission because it widened the meaning of corruption and provided new tools, not least the appointment of a special prosecutor, Nationalist MP Beppe Fenech Adami told Parliament yesterday.
The Bill continued to reinforce the principles of transparency and accountability. It followed a series of pieces of legislation that were approved in the past few years, thanks to which the people enforced scrutiny measures on those in public office.
Dr Fenech Adami said there was increased recognition that the fundamental principles of zero tolerance, transparency and accountability needed to be enforced. There was unanimous agreement between both political parties that the implementation of the Ombudsman’s Office was an important step in this regard, with the people making hundreds of complaints.
The set-up of the Public Accounts Committee was also another step towards the scrutinising of the country’s administration, despite controversies seen during this committee’s sittings.
Another means that continued to scrutinise the government was the Auditor General’s Office.
The current legislature had seen many such steps made by the government in its work to continue working towards further accountability and transparency.
There needed to be a system of checks and balances to stem cases of corruption. The introduction of the Whistleblower Act was necessary because those who helped in uncovering abuse needed to be protected.
This Bill provided for a great change with regard to the appointment of the members of the commission. This was a fundamental change that was bound to gain further respect from people.
The government was moving in the right direction. The commission’s chairman would now be nominated by the President after the approval of the person concerned by a two-thirds majority vote by the House.
Both sides of the House believed in the validity of such a structure. The criteria for appointing this person should be competence and integrity, as well as legal insight. It would be highly beneficial if the appointee was a lawyer, a retired magistrate or judge or someone with a legal background, having seven years’ experience in the field.
It should be ensured that the appointee should not have any conflict of interest. The person’s role was specific and, should the person discover cases of corruption, the law provided that he challenged the police’s lack of action, if this should be the case.
Dr Fenech Adami said it was important to legislate against abuse, even though one could never totally eradicate corruption because it was intrinsically part of human nature.
Ċensu Galea (PN) said the Bill would help the fight against corruption. There should be the right tools to investigate allegations, and MPs had to ensure that they unmasked any corruption they got to know about.
It was unacceptable that certain MPs had, in the past, fabricated allegations for political purposes and portrayed these as being factual. The number of allegations tended to increase just before a general election, only to fizzle out afterwards. Many times, what people remembered were the allegations and not how these were unmasked as simply allegations. People who had made such false allegations should have been penalised.
The media also created a false perception of increased corruption. Allegations should be made only when they are substantiated with solid proof so that they could be investigated by the commission.
Mr Galea agreed with the minister that there should be an increase in the penalties related to corruption, because the message against corruption had to be loud and clear.
He disagreed with Helena Dalli (PL) who had said that the government was only acting now to fight corruption when half its term had passed. This was untrue; the truth was that the government worked against corruption continuously.
He agreed with Anġlu Farrugia (PL) that the special prosecutor chosen had to be a person of integrity, above any suspicion. He believed that both the opposition and the government had to be in agreement regarding the chosen prosecutor, whose appointment could be extended to a second four-year term. Many times, finding good employment after having carried out the role of prosecutor was difficult because companies would be reluctant to employ someone who had been in such a position.
There must be a way of enforcing people to testify when called by the commission. This should not be a matter of choice, just as in court.
The commission should be efficient in dealing with cases which should be concluded expeditiously.
Mr Galea related his personal experience, saying that more than 15 years ago, when he was involved in the Housing Authority, a woman had complained that she had been side-stepped and a residence which by right should have been awarded to her had been unfairly given to someone else. It had turned out that she had not even submitted an application for the residence in question, and thus he had won the case. Yet, during the proceedings his picture connected to allegations of corruption had been published several times in the media, resulting in the creation of false perceptions.
He recounted another case which had happened eight years ago. The Auditor General had presented a report in which he had said that the government had overrun expenses substantially.
The House Public Accounts Committee investigating the case had concluded that there was no basis to support this claim. He believed that the problem in such cases was usually that the original estimate quoted was inadequate.