Blatant cases of patronage no longer raise eyebrows in a political environment where, sadly and most frustratingly, such abuse appears to have become acceptable. Many are prepared to accept even worse than patronage today as shown by the fact that, despite the corruption claims made in the first years of Joseph Muscat’s government, Labour was re-elected with a huge majority.
However, no electoral win can ever justify wrongdoing or lack of good governance. The latest example of patronage and lack of good governance was given only recently when a Labour Party candidate who did not make it to Parliament in the last election, Deborah Schembri, was appointed lawyer to the Lands Authority, an institution she helped set up in a reform of the government’s property division following the controversy over the Gaffarena land scandal. Assisting her is Robert Musumeci, who also played a key role in the reform.
Nationalist MP Jason Azzopardi called the appointment a shameful case of conflict of interest. He argued she was given the post by the same person whom she had appointed as chief executive officer. Although Dr Schembri was quick to refute the implication that the authority’s CEO was returning a favour, the perception is otherwise.
As to the possibility that there may be cases that could involve her in a conflict of interest, the authority has said that, in such eventuality, she would pass on representation to her colleague.
Still, there are other question marks over her appointment, the first being that it was made through a direct order. A number of reasons have been given for this but even these call for clarification.
The problem arose after the authority’s lawyers left their posts following a dispute over promotions. This, according to Dr Schembri, created a difficulty because unless a replacement was found in time it would have jeopardised its position in several pending cases. She said: “Failure to act quickly within a certain deadline would have meant the authority losing its right to make its submissions and present evidence in court. This would have been a disaster.”
Justifying the appointment, she went on to say that, having piloted the Lands Authority law, she had all the necessary credentials to defend its best interests.
This may very well be the case but circumventing acceptable appointment procedures still does not sound right. The CEO’s argument that the tight deadline did not leave them the option to issue a call does not reflect well on the way the authority handled the issue. Opposition spokesman Ryan Callus said lawyers on the authority’s payroll left a few months ago in protest at the unfair promotions handed out. The authority disputes the claim, arguing there was nothing irregular and that the “departures were unrelated”.
What was the dispute about then? Could it not have been solved in time before a crisis broke out, necessitating the urgent appointment of what seemed to be the only other qualified lawyer available to represent the authority?
The CEO said the authority was convinced it made the best choice in the circumstances. That may very well be the case but it would have been better had it ensured the avoidance of such “circumstances” so that the appointment would have been made in accordance with normal procedure.