I refer to the reply by the Director of Information, Paul Azzopardi, to my article entitled ‘Culture of Corruption’.
Instead of limiting himself to a statement by way of contradiction or explanation, Azzopardi has come up with a number of red herrings to divert attention from the central issues of the article.
I would like to make it clear that the scope of my article was not to chastise anyone as I have been accused, but to raise an awareness of the immeasurable harm resulting from the illegal recruitment of persons in the public sector under the fake designation of ‘person of trust’.
Apart from the negative effect that such recruitment has had on the public service, it has caused unnecessary hardships to persons who have been denied merited jobs with the government and to their families.
The constitutional law experts making up the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission have quite rightly raised their concerns about the appointment of individuals in the public service as persons of trust, without having previously undergone a selection process based on merit. In their opinion, these individuals are a danger to the quality of the public service, which forms the backbone of a democratic state under the rule of law.
Azzopardi has denied that persons of trust hold administrative, managerial and technical positions, and invited readers to visit the website of public service management to prove his point. However, the relevant section of the code testifies that, to the contrary, employment on the basis of trust can be in all specific positions (independently of whether administrative, managerial or technical).
In fact, positions of trust without a selection process based on merit are known to have been given in many specific positions ranging from those of procurement officer and maintenance officer to those of dog handler, cleaner and messenger. It is, therefore, evident that these positions have not actually been filled according to the exigencies of the service or the existence of humanitarian reasons as required by the PSMC.
Azzopardi has further stated that persons of trust only hold non-executive positions, which means that they are not responsible for making decisions or ensuring that decisions are carried out. However, in actual practice, the situation is completely different than it is on paper.
Experience has shown that these persons are given the liberty of exerting their authority over other public officers and government resources, to the extent of dictating to others what should be done.
A simple example can be taken from the pressure exerted on the Director of the Government Estate Management Division, Charles Camilleri, by Clint Scerri, as person of trust within the secretariat of ex-Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon, to finalise without delay the Gaffarena property expropriation deal that costed the taxpayer €3.4 million. Camilleri had filed an affidavit on March 6, 2016, giving account of the undue pressure that he was subjected to by Scerri.
Similar pressure was exerted by Scerri on notary Anthony Hili who was employed with the Government Property Department. This emerges from Hili’s own testimony given on May 9, 2016, in the court case to revert the deal with Gaffarena that was instituted by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, in his capacity as a member of the House of Representatives, and the Attorney General.
A permanent secretary is intended to give continuity to the country’s government and the position is renewed every three years
With regards to the remuneration of individuals employed as persons of trust, this is not limited, as stated by Azzopardi. In fact, the take home pay of many of these individuals is substantially higher than their basic salary, as a result of a raft of perks and fringe benefits that they receive. For instance, Education Minister Evarist Bartolo’s ex-driver and canvasser, Edward Caruana, who is currently facing criminal charges for allegedly soliciting bribes, received a financial package of over €50,000.
Azzopardi has accused me of obfuscating reality and contradicted my statement that just two weeks before the announcement of the last general election, Cutajar gave 10 working days to all government entities and agencies to transform hundreds of definite contracts into indefinite ones, in what appeared to be part of Labour’s desperate pre-electoral use of power of incumbency to win votes. Azzopardi insisted that it was well prior to the actual announcement of the last elections that this had taken place.
His falsity on this issue can be exposed by irrefutable facts. On April 18, 2017, Cutajar issued Directive 12 concerning the transformation of contracts, which can be found online at https://publicservice.gov.mt/ en/people/Documents/Directives/Directive-12.pdf. Only 13 ordinary days later, on May 1, the Prime Minister called a snap general election for June 3. So, I ask Azzopardi, who is obfuscating reality?
Azzopardi has also tried to distract attention from the issue concerning Cutajar’s different reasoning at the time of the Nationalist government, where it comes to discrimination on the basis of one’s political beliefs. While at that time he fought the employment discrimination that he considered to have been committed against him because of his political beliefs, at present he is perpetuating gross employment discrimination resulting from the filling of hundreds of positions of trust on political considerations.
Azzopardi could not not contradict the solid fact that I presented, that Cutajar had obtained the right to enter into discussions with the government over a compensation that he had estimated to amount to €17,800 a year. So he decided to bring in the red herring that the compensation was decided upon by the Employment Commission, which I have never denied or, in any way, contested.
Worse than that, Azzopardi tried to give the false impression that I had lied by not mentioning that the said compensation was not the result of Cutajar’s discussions with the government. Such a misinterpretation of facts is shockingly unacceptable, considering that in his official position Azzopardi should be communicating information to the public that is accurate, complete and correct to the best of his knowledge.
Another red herring was brought in by Azzopardi when he referred to a court ruling by Mr Justice Silvio Meli that had found nothing discriminatory in the demand made by Cutajar for the resignation of permanent secretaries appointed under the previous government. This ruling certainly does not impinge upon my statement that Cutajar has not come up with the slightest shred of evidence of political partisanship by any of these officers in the course of duties.
Here it is also pertinent to point out that, as it emerges from the position title itself, a permanent secretary is intended to give continuity to the country’s government and the position is renewed every three years without being in any way tied to a change in the party in government. According to the Constitution, the removal from office of a permanent secretary is at the discretion of the President of the Republic acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister after the latter consults with the Public Service Commission.
I also maintain that under Cutajar’s watch, discrimination was allowed to take place against the Malta Police Association, a registered trade union, when it was left waiting for the approval of a full-time secondment that it had every right to be given. At the same time, such a secondment was given to the Police Officers Union belonging to Cutajar’s old-time General Workers’ Union, despite not having the right since it had not yet been registered with the Registrar of Trade Unions and, in any case, did not have the required membership.
In the lack of a valid argument to refute this fact, Azzopardi decided to resort to the fallacious and deceptive argument that the secondment was made to the GWU and not to the police union in question belonging to it. He seems to think that he could change the nature of the argument by simply referring in a different way to the police trade union that was unfairly advantaged over the other. What a puerile argument indeed.
What I actually find most bewildering is the fact Azzopardi, whether of his own accord or acting on instructions by Cutajar, refuses to accept the share of responsibility that the current Labour government has for the harm that has befallen the public service.
Denis Tanti is a former assistant director (industrial and employment relations) in the Ministry for Health.
This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece