Labour MP Joseph Sammut this evening objected to the fact that he was referred to as a Labour MP in an article in the Times of Malta on Saturday.

The article “Gaffarena calls Labour MP as witness in his defence”, reproduced in In-Nazzjon and referred to in MaltaToday.

Distinction, he said, should be made between an MP’s function as a parliamentarian and his or her profession.

Labour MP Joseph Sammut

A legal office, he said, was not frequented by saints and a lawyer did not protect the act one was accused of but the right a person had according to law.

He also called on the Speaker to ensure journalists were not allowed to write such reports.

“Amateurs should find a job elsewhere… We cannot accept such attacks on MPs," he said.

He quoted from the article, which stated that a letter he sent the director of land in June 2014 was not mentioned in the Auditor General’s report on the deal.

The article also said that the letter could be one of the documents missing from the Land Department file on the deal and that the National Audit Office noted in its report that various documents were missing from the file it was given during the investigation.

Dr Sammut read and later tabled the letter in question, which he said was accompanied by plans of the mentioned property and land.

In the letter, he said his client was co-proprietor of 36, Old Mint Street, Valletta, currently detained by the government against rent, which property his client was willing to exchange with two fields, one in Handaq, the other at Hal Mula, which were leased to him.

He also noted his client had already made a similar offer for land he had in Mriehel, which offer had not been accepted and that in the new offer the Mriehel land was being substituted with the Old Mint Street property.

In the letter, Dr Sammut asked the director to inform him whether he was willing to consider the offer and, if yes, to initialise the procedure for the exchange to be made.

He noted that the word expropriation was never mentioned in the letter contrary but the article in Times of Malta said he asked for the property in Old Mint Street to be expropriated.

“It is clear that who wrote the article for the Times of Malta wanted to misguide the public or was made to do so,” he said adding that he could not understand why emphasis was made on the fact that he was a Labour MP when he signed the lawyer as Mr Gaffarena's lawyer and did not even sign MP after his name.

Moreover, if the letter was one of the documents missing from the Land Department file on the deal as the newspaper was alleging, from where did Times of Malta get its reference to the letter, he asked as he pointed out that the letter was in fact mentioned in the NAO report so the newspaper report was wrong.

As can be seen from the Times of Malta article, the newspaper gets its reference to the letter from the fact that Keith Bonnici, Mr Gaffarena's lawyer, listed Dr Sammut as a witness “to testify on the contents of a letter he sent to the Land Department” in the name of Mr Gaffarena and his wife Josielle.

Dr Sammut said that if the letter was no longer among the documents which were supposed to have been analysed, where was it and whose interest had it been to remove it, he asked.

He called on the Speaker to order an inquiry to establish where the documents went saying this was a serious shortcoming.

“The report states that the letter I said instigated the expropriation, but my letter only mentions an exchange so I cannot accept such mud throwing.

“Such reports by journalists, he said, should not be allowed and amateurs should find a job elsewhere… We cannot accept attacks on MPs by people who did not have and did not see the document,” he said as he called on the Speaker to look into the matter.

Speaker Anġlu Farrugia said he had taken note of Dr Sammut’s request and would take steps as necessary.