The PN administrative committee’s decision to appoint an ethics board to review allegations against leadership hopeful Adrian Delia has raised questions. Ivan Martin spoke to party insiders and outsiders about how they think the party should have handled the situation.

Michael Falzon
Former Nationalist minister

“This should have been handled by normal people doing normal things. Not abnormal people doing abnormal things.

“I don’t agree with any of this. I don’t agree with the meeting of the administrative [council] at this sensitive interim period. I don’t agree with the setting up of this ad hoc committee.

“They [the party administrative] said they had resigned, so they should have left altogether and allowed for a smooth transition between leaders.

“When Alfred Sant resigned, when he eventually did, he did not interfere in the process that saw Joseph Muscat elected Labour Party leader.

“You reap what you sow.”

Tonio Fenech
Former Nationalist minister

“It is the duty of every candidate to ensure his or her name is clear.

“A party would be starting off on the wrong foot if it elected a person over whom there are issues of concern.

“So, on a point of principle, I feel the party has a duty to elect a leader who fits the bill.

“Now, whether or not this should have been done by one party structure or another, I don’t know. I am not an expert on the statute, really.

It is in everyone’s best interest – to be frank even Dr Delia’s – for
this matter to be settled and not be hanging over the election of a new leader

“I think the people appointed on this ad hoc committee are of a certain stature.

“Bear in mind the situation is unprecedented, so there will be a lot of different opinions of what should or should not be done, but I think it was a good way to handle it.

“It is in everyone’s best interest – to be frank even Dr Delia’s – for this matter to be settled and not be hanging over the election of a new leader when members vote.”

Godfrey Grima
Veteran journalist/political commentator

“Shambolic. This situation is a mess, and what we are seeing is the opposite of leadership from a party with a long history of strong leaders.

“The [Nationalist] party does not know what it is doing. It appears unclear and confused and a party cannot be confused. It shows that the party has been hollow from within for a long time.

“The way the allegations were handled made the party look rudderless.

“We are talking about allegations coming from someone who has been proven a liar several times in court and such an important decision is hinging on her.

“I don’t think the party has ever been in such a mess.”

Michael Briguglio
Sociologist/former AD leader/recent PN convert

“I think this should have been done in the first instance. There should have been a proper due diligence process before the election started, which would have avoided all of this.

“As for this two-day window, it would have been better if it were longer, but I suppose it is better than nothing at this point.

“The fact remains that it was a mistake to not carry out a due diligence process when candidates first put their names forward.

“It should be part of the initial application process. Of course, this would have been better for all the candidates and not just for Adrian­­­ Delia.”

What’s next for the leadership race? Nobody knows

The PN’s administrative council will likely meet again tonight or tomorrow morning to discuss the recommendations of an ethics committee probe into allegations against leadership contestant Adrian Delia.

What will come out of the meeting, however, is anybody’s guess.

The ethics committee, set up according to the party’s statute, is in the process of interviewing the parties involved, and, a PN spokesman, said “the sky’s the limit” on how they chose to investigate the allegations against Dr Delia.

Blogger Daphne Caruana Galizia has claimed that money from a London-based prostitution racket passed through Dr Delia’s bank account at Barclays International in Jersey. Dr Delia strongly denies the allegations and has sued for libel.

Party sources said that at one extreme of the spectrum of possible outcomes, the committee could find there was no wrongdoing on Dr Delia’s part and the election would go ahead as planned.

On the other hand, the worst possible outcome for Dr Delia would be that the committee recommended kicking him out of the party altogether.

If this were the case, the administrative council would forward the matter to the party executive to take the necessary steps.

If the ethics committee recommended suspending Dr Delia’s candidature, it would be a matter for the administrative council.

Administrative council head Karol Aquilina declined to comment on the possible outcomes of the two-day inquiry, directing this newspaper’s questions to a party spokesman. Party sources said both possibilities were “tricky”, as the voting process had already started and more than 100 votes were cast in the early voting window.

Taking Dr Delia out of the race – “one way or another” – would raise issues of the party’s electoral process being undermined, they said.

Asked whether the party was considering taking the allegations against Dr Delia to the police, the spokesman said this depended on the ethics committee’s recommendations.

“We are wading into unknown territory here,” party insiders said.