“Malta has a law that applies to the gods at Castille and another one applicable to the common mortals,” Opposition Leader Simon Busuttil remarked during a debate on a motion moved by independent MP Marlene Farrugia.
While a government employee was suspended because his wife was mentioned in the Panama Papers, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff Keith Schembri remained in place.
Touching upon Mr Schembri’s article in The Sunday Times of Malta, Dr Busuttil said it was unacceptable that he threatened, albeit in a veiled manner, the media. Referring to the same article, Dr Busuttil said Mr Schembri had claimed he wanted to set the record straight, but he did not admit anything and did not even mention Panama or his other companies.
Prime Minister Joseph Muscat remarked that the debate showed the difference between government and the Opposition. While the latter portrayed itself as untainted, government acknowledged there was always room for improvement.
“Dr Busuttil spoke in a disproportionate and dirty manner. He quoted one Panama Papers document, but did not mention another which gave a different version.” Local politics should return to normality, where politicians discussed matters that counted, such as the economy and the distribution of wealth, Dr Muscat added.
I want Parliament to ask Mr Schembri why he betrayed the country and to answer about his web of companies
The original motion moved “on behalf of all Maltese of good will” by Dr Farrugia would have censured the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, following “documented, most serious and unprecedented allegations”.
Following exchanges with the Clerk of the House, Dr Farrugia removed the request for Mr Schembri’s censure and amended the motion to call for setting up a parliamentary committee to investigate and report on “whether the national interest and the public revenue were being protected in view of these accusations and documented allegations”.
Considering the findings of this committee, Parliament would then decide whether the Prime Minister should be censured for his trust in Mr Schembri and whether he should ask for his chief of staff’s immediate resignation.
Addressing the House, Dr Farrugia said that following the Prime Minister’s inaction and those of the Police Commissioner and other institutions, she was proposing that Parliament investigate the allegations against Mr Schembri.
“I want Parliament to ask Mr Schembri why he betrayed the country and to answer about his web of companies. The story would end there if he can show that there was nothing wrong. Why is this so difficult for government to accept?”
However, she said, Mr Schembri has hijacked the Labour Party as well as government with persons posted in ministries to spy and report back to him.
Dr Farrugia referred to the Prime Minister’s claim that the motion was not fair as it was asking for Mr Schembri to be judged by a committee composed of a majority of Opposition MPs, who had already passed judgement on him.
“I am willing to amend the motion so that government may have the majority. I am even prepared to accept that the committee be composed solely of government members. My only goal is that people get to know the truth.”
She said that this was an opportunity to demonstrate whether the pre-electoral transparency promise was an empty undertaking and that government MPs were not endorsing the disposal of government assets through secret agreements.
The motion was defeated following a six-hour debate.