Just like he said he would be doing, MEP David Casa has presented the court with a leaked report by the Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU). He insists the report contains evidence that money was transferred from a company connected to Armada Floating Gas Services Malta, owners of the liquefied natural gas tanker berthed in Marsaxlokk, to the Dubai-based company 17 Black.
Casa has bravely faced the threats of fines and imprisonment intended to dissuade him from presenting his evidence, that were made by individuals who have an interest that the truth on corruption and money laundering involving officials at the highest levels of the Maltese government does not surface.
He has taken upon himself the weight of a task that the country’s institutions responsible for the enforcement of the law in Malta have proved themselves unable to carry out in an impartial and independent manner. These institutions have been hijacked by the government and hence rendered incapable to tackle suspicion of corruption by certain high echelons in the country.
Government exponents have attempted to divert public attention from the social and political realities of the country by resorting to purely legalistic argumentation that leakage of an FIAU report is prohibited by law. One exponent after another has deliberately thrown a red herring by stating that equality before law would not be respected if criminal action is not taken against anyone who leaks such a report, followed by punishment on conviction.
This reasoning would hold true in a democracy that truly upholds the rule of law. But definitely not in Malta.
Regrettably, the government is manifestly disregarding the principle of equality that emanates from the rule of law. Not all who violate the law in Malta are punished and a clear distinction is made between one individual and another. Muscat-style New Labour has brought about a situation where, as aptly stated by the Chief Justice, the country requires to go back to fundamental principles of law previously considered to be too basic and therefore elementary to be discussed in a modern democratic society.
The Police Commissioner and Attorney General have shown their reluctance to investigate a number of FIAU reports that had found a reasonable suspicion of money laundering by persons close to the Prime Minister. This has naturally fuelled a perception that these individuals enjoy impunity from prosecution.
When in November the Commissioner of Police was answering questions put to him by a delegation of MEPs that visited Malta to investigate the rule of law and allegations of corruption and money laundering, he said the police had limited competences to start investigations into two FIAU reports that found serious suspicions of money laundering involving the Prime Minister’s chief of staff Keith Schembri.
One report, raising a suspicion that Schembri had received €100,000 in kickbacks from the sale of passports, was sent to the police in July 2016. The second report was sent in November of that same year, this time raising suspicion of money laundering and proceeds of crime over the transfer of over €650,000 from Schembri to the former managing director of Allied Newspapers Ltd, Adrian Hillman.
On his part, the Attorney General failed to assume responsibility and take action himself in the case of these reports, when over the past two years he referred five other cases of possible money laundering to the courts for investigation.
In its draft mission report the delegation of MEPs concluded that there is evidence of systematic and serious deficiencies in the rule of law in Malta. The country’s reputation was subsequently tarnished during the debate on the report by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Parliament.
It was the third time in a space of only seven months that the rule of law in Malta had been debated by the European Parliament
This was the third time in a space of only seven months that the rule of law in Malta had been debated by the European Parliament, and the third consecutive condemnation by the European Parliament on the way the Labour government is administering the country, or rather, mal-administering it.
Labour MP Manuel Mallia has been at the forefront among those who have tried to silence Casa. In his typical vainglorious style, he implied that the inquiring magistrate had an obligation to warn Casa that by presenting the alleged findings he would be incriminating himself in a crime, and further insisted that the magistrate should order criminal action in the eventuality that information in the report is revealed.
Surely there must have been a scope behind Mallia’s pompous threats against a political adversary who has proved himself a real thorn in the side of the Muscat government. It is not hard to acknowledge that he wanted to impress by his rhetorical prowess. He could well have been after an iced bun. Who knows? He might have thought it could help him obtain Muscat’s favourable consideration for a third chance as a minister.
Whatever the reasons behind Mallia’s insinuations that Casa engaged himself in illegal behaviour, these have naturally opened the door to scrutinisation and examination of his own behaviour during the time he served as a minister, so one can draw his conclusion on whether he had conformed to those standards of conduct expected of him.
One recalls that shortly after having been appointed Minister for Home Affairs and National Security in 2013, Mallia recommended an accelerated promotion to four army officers in the rank of major. Within two weeks they were promoted twice, first to lieutenant colonel and subsequently to colonel. Two were further promoted such that one of them known for his closeness to the Prime Minister rocketed to the position of commander of the armed forces after he was given four promotions in just three months.
The other was promoted to deputy commander through the fast track by means of three promotions within the same period. A court case was subsequently filed against Mallia claiming discrimination in the granting of promotions.
Several army officers also presented complaints to the Ombudsman with regard to controversial promotions handed out in 2013, most notably the position of commander. Mallia obstructed the Ombudsman from investigating these complaints, insisting that he had no jurisdiction over the army. The Ombudsman took the case to court that on its part dismissed Mallia’s arguments.
The climax was reached when Mallia, whose portfolio included justice, released a statement to cover up a shooting incident involving his driver and canvasser Paul Sheehan. He said Sheehan fired warning shots when in actual fact he had fired towards a vehicle. This led to an order being issued to Mallia by the Prime Minister to step down from minister. After Mallia failed to submit his resignation, he was unceremoniously sacked.
Considering that before entering politics Mallia was a respected lawyer with over 33 years of experience defending clients facing tough criminal charges, his antics both as a minister and now as a backbench MP come rather surprisingly and unexpectedly.
Denis Tanti is a former assistant director (industrial and employment relations) in the Ministry for Health.