Joseph Muscat’s performance during last Wednesday’s debate in the European Parliament on the rule of law in Malta revealed nothing new. He simply stuck to his script. And that was the problem.
He failed to assure his critics that the rule of law was fully guaranteed, while his sniggering as MEPs made their speeches bordered on the arrogant. His cry of “fake news” in reference to the serious corruption allegations sounded Trumpian – and that’s no compliment.
The fact that the European Parliament felt the need to hold a debate about the rule of law in Malta was already worrying. Malta has now joined Poland and Hungary among the list of countries that have been subject to similar debates.
The criticism of Dr Muscat came from across the political spectrum, dwelling on the lack of political or police action over the Panama Papers scandal and Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit reports. It was significant that the Socialist Group was not there in force to support a prime minister from its own political family.
In an attempt to prove that the rule of law is alive and well in Malta, Dr Muscat told MEPs that four independent magisterial inquiries linked to the Panama Papers were taking place. The truth is, however, that two of them are investigating alleged kickbacks and money laundering involving Keith Schembri, and they only came about because of evidence provided to a magistrate by Opposition leader Simon Busuttil. Another revolves around the ownership of a Panama company alleged to belong to Dr Muscat’s wife, which he requested, and a fourth was requested by Pilatus Bank after the leak of FIAU reports put the bank in a bad light.
The fact remains that the police have been sitting on various FIAU reports for a year, while Konrad Mizzi and Schembri, who opened secret companies in Panama, are walking around as if all this is normal in a democracy. The Prime Minister was unable to counter any of these facts on Wednesday.
The rule of law is critical to a functioning democracy and an essential criterion for EU membership. Many voted to join the bloc precisely because they believed it would guarantee the rule of law after the terrible experience of the 1980s.
While there is no doubt that EU membership in itself has proven to be a catalyst for democratic reform, the bloc has until recently appeared reluctant to tackle Member States who deviate from democratic norms. The only option so far available to the EU has been the suspension of voting rights, a measure which has never been used. A recent German proposal linked eligibility for EU funds to compliance with the rule of law. We hope neither of these measures will ever be used against Malta.
To make sure of that, the Prime Minister should not have interpreted his re-election as a signal to continue to turn a blind eye to alleged corruption, as he did by re-appointing Mizzi and Schembri. Such moves only sow discord. Yet he has the temerity to accuse those who criticise his government in international fora as harming Malta’s interests. Former GWU head Tony Zarb has gone a step further, attacking PN MEPs Roberta Metsola and David Casa, who spoke out during the debate, as “traitors”, a term often heard in the turbulent 1980s.
Labour was originally elected in 2013 as a party radically different from the one of corruption and injustice from that period. Does Muscat really want to return to those bad old days?