Labour MP Evarist Bartolo this afternoon asked the Prime Minister to say whether he had ever been approached by someone who had documents claiming that there was rampant corruption at the energy corporation Enemalta.
Speaking at a press conference about the bribery scandal that hit Enemalta’s oil procurement, Mr Bartolo put a series of questions to the Prime Minister, who, he said, had assumed responsibility for the matter when this morning he reiterated that he stood by the statement of Transport Minister Austin Gatt (then responsible for Enemalta) that he never discussed any oil procurement tenders with the businessman at the heart of this investigation.
Mr Bartolo did not give further details about the person who could have met the Prime Minister, even when pressed for this information. However, he indicated that it could have been the former PN President Frank Portelli, who recently said that the revelations of bribery at Enemalta were simply “the tip of the iceberg”.
At one point, Labour candidate Emanuel Mallia, who also addressed the press conference, referred to this very statement by Dr Portelli and said that one would have expected the Prime Minister to call him after such a comment and ask for more information. Dr Portelli recently also said more information would be forthcoming should there be a Whistleblower act.
After that call, the Prime Minister had made known that he was prepared to use his powers to recommend a presidential pardon, which eventually was given to oil trader George Farrugia on Friday.
But Dr Mallia questioned the involvement of the politicians in this case, particularly as the case could directly or indirectly, involve politicians.
Instead of having Cabinet decide this matter, the Attorney General could have, on his own, issued a certificate that would have protected Mr Farrugia from prosecution in return for evidence on the case, Dr Mallia said.
The effect would have been the same but the process would have been more above board, he argued.
Asked by timesofmalta.com why the Labour Party was making such an emphasis on the procedure, given that the result was the same – an assurance of protection to Mr Farrugia in return for all the truth on the case – Dr Mallia argued that Dr Gatt was likely made privy to the reasons why George Farrugia should be given a pardon and which, in his position he should not have.
On this point, Mr Bartolo also asked to know whether the terms of the Presidential pardon, approved by the Cabinet on Friday evening were the same as those agreed to by the Attorney General, Mr Farrugia and his lawyer on Sunday evening. Asked if he knew something to this effect, said at this point, he could only ask a question and had to be very prudent.