The government’s court proceedings to recover the land transferred to Mark Gaffarena in the expropriation of a palazzo in Old Mint Street, Valletta was designed to be lost as it contained legal flaws, Opposition leader Simon Busuttil said this morning.
He noted that in the case filed by the Prime Minister, the court was being asked to order the reversal of a decision because of a “mistake”.
“This court case was designed to be lost because the court will not reverse something because of a mistake. It is a big legal flaw. It is also ironic that the case was not only against Mr Gaffarena but also against the Land Department, which is the Prime Minister’s political responsibility. So it is a Joseph Muscat vs Joseph Muscat court case,” Dr Busuttil said.
Addressing the party faithful in Sannat in Gozo, Dr Busuttil said it was also inconsistency at its best how the government has initiated court proceedings on the Gaffarena case but had withdrawn all court cases related to Australia Hall and Café Premiere.
“This is surreal. There is no doubt that even the genuine Labourites are seeing this. Joseph Muscat cannot go on taking people for a ride. The court case was designed to be lost.”
He described the Gaffarena scandal as “mafia from Castille” and said the deal stank from the very beginning.
He said the police took months to start their investigation into the deal because the police Economic Crimes Unit was composed of the two sons of former police commissioner Ray Zammit, Daniel and Roderick, who were in business with Mr Gaffarena.
This is all part of an act. After the New Year message there was another act in Parliament this week where Dr Muscat did not shoulder political responsibility for something done by a junior minister at Castille
“This is all part of an act. After the New Year message there was another act in Parliament this week where Dr Muscat did not shoulder political responsibility for something done by a junior minister at Castille,” he said.
He added: “What are the political consequences? Who has to carry responsibility? We think that it is Dr Muscat who has to face the music not only because he is the minister responsible for the Land Department but also because it happened under his watch.”
He said Dr Muscat had no option but to remove Dr Falzon but questioned why Dr Falzon had not been suspended pending the outcome of the NAO inquiry.
He also asked why Dr Falzon was kept in the parliamentary group and why he was still occupying his parliamentary seat.
“Joseph Muscat is responsible for the anything goes culture. It is obvious that there is corruption in this case? What is holding him back?” he asked.
Dr Busuttil also asked how Dr Falzon was different to another Parliamentary Secretary, Ian Borg, who was also recently chastised by another independent body, the Ombudsman, over his Dingli property and the planning permit to redevelop it.
“The Ombudsman condemned him and he was arrogant enough to tell Times of Malta that his case was dead and buried. I can assure him it is not dead and buried,” he said.
Dr Busuttil said the corruption was funded by taxpayers who are still paying high prices for fuel when the price of oil was down to 2003 levels. In 2003, people paid 61 cents a litre for diesel but people are paying €1.22 instead.
Concluding, Dr Busuttil said the Nationalist Party was increasingly becoming the alternative government, and people were looking at it as an alternative to this corruption-ridden government.
GOVERNMENT REACTION
In a reaction, the government said it was shameful that the Opposition leader had implied that the Attorney General instituted a court case with the purpose of losing it, so that Mr Gaffarena would benefit.
Such attacks on constitutional institutions and posts were unacceptable and showed that Dr Busuttil had not understood anything about the case instituted by the prime minister to recover the assets handed to Mr Gaffarena. This was a simple case filed by Dr Muscat as an MP asking for the contract to be revoked since rules that regulated the transfer of public property had been broken.
It was a case which Dr Busuttil himself could have instituted. But he had instead chosen to attack the institutions, while putting the courts under pressure, ultimately helping those who did not wish the assets to be returned.