Nobody should be surprised the European Commission wants to make sure the right procurement procedures were followed when the government, or Enemalta, issued a call for tenders for a desperately needed extension to the Delimara power plant. If any of the functionaries in Brussels read through the Auditor General’s report, released in April, the questions the government will have to answer are likely to be many and very searching. The government has until today to reply.
According to a spokesman, “The Commission has concerns that Malta might have infringed EU public procurement law in the tender procedure carried out by Enemalta…” It seems, at this stage, at least, that Brussels will not be going into the environmental aspect of the contract nor into the allegations of irregularities. Although one cannot exclude that, at some point in the future, the European Commission might enquire about what sort of effect the extension is likely to have on the environment and people’s health, it is unlikely it will probe the charges of bribery or corruption that have plagued this venture. Which does not mean that if the government were to satisfy Brussels on the procurement procedure then all is well.
Of course, that is what the government would say. Just as it did when the Auditor General wrote in his report that his “inquiry did not come across any hard and conclusive evidence of corruption…” He never said there was none. Indeed, he felt he had to qualify that statement by adding that “for record’s sake, one cannot fail to mention the lack of cooperation from certain stakeholders who contended that they could not recall certain events or information”.
The power station extension job has become a top urgent matter, what with the Marsa power plant fast nearing its use-by date and demand for electricity being what it is, at times catching Enemalta on one foot, in one way or another, and leading to nation-wide and prolonged blackouts, unacceptable in this day and age. The possibility cannot be discounted that, as the powers-that-be rushed to solve this issue, some individuals decided to make hay while the sun shone. And that is why a serious, independent inquiry into what really happened is still in order.
It is also possible it was for the same reason that certain procedures happened the way they did, cutting corners and even treading on very thin ice in some instances. Some comments in the Auditor General’s report suffice: “… various cases of administrative shortcomings, especially on the part of Enemalta Corporation and the Department of Contracts, were identified… this was due mostly either to lack of experience in the procurement process adopted during the tender and/or insufficient coordination… The (National Audit Office) questions the undue haste with which the agreement was signed.”
The Auditor General’s report on the tender was extensive and exhaustive. It provoked a national debate and pressure was building on the government to do something about it. The opposition was making the best of it… until it made a huge slip. When the contract was debated in Parliament and controversy ensued on how two MPs from both sides of the House voted, the opposition decided to walk out. That meant public attention was diverted from the damning conclusion of the Auditor General’s report to whether an MP is infallible or not.
The European Commission’s demand for explanations may ignite that debate again… for the benefit of all.