Egrant questions

As the political scoring from the fallout of the magisterial inquiry into Egrant continues, am I the only reader to object to the tone of Martin Scicluna’s article (‘Justice served’, July 25)?

He repeatedly states there was “no evidence” on which to base the allegations and accuses a number of prominent politicians of having “no grounds” for the action taken.

As I understand it, the primary evidence, the trust declarations, have been found to be falsified. Only a magisterial inquiry could have uncovered this as, prima facie, the documents would have appeared legitimate and, thus, pointed to corruption.

There is much still unanswered, particularly who the beneficial owner of Egrant was, given it was set up in the same way, at the same time and by the same advisers as Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi’s Panama companies. Egrant no longer exists, so, perhaps, we will never know. But am I naive in thinking that, had action been taken in 2016, when the Panama papers first came to light, many of the accounts now closed would have been active and the questions now left unanswered could have been resolved much sooner?

As for immediate calls by various figures in the Labour Party for Simon Busuttil to resign, why have they not taken such swift action within their own ranks?

I don’t know of any other European democracy in which ministers facing serious allegations are not, at least, suspended, pending investigations. So why does the Prime Minister continue to give significant responsibilities to Schembri and Mizzi?

Comments not loading? We recommend using Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox with javascript turned on.
Comments powered by Disqus