The Auditor General’s report on the investigation carried out by the NAO on the Electrogas contract, had the reaction one expected. The Nationalist Opposition and Simon Busuttil, who had originally asked the AG to investigate the contract since he had alleged that it reeked of corruption, sleaze, lack of transparency, kickbacks, “secret trips” to Azerbaijan by Konrad Mizzi, the Prime Minister and chief of staff Keith Schembri, and many other innuendos, must have been greatly disappointed.
Almost all of Busuttil’s allegations have resulted to have been more figments of his partisan imagination than reality. When he made his allegations about the Electrogas contract, he was still leader of the Opposition.
His main allegations were: that the contract reeked of corruption; that transparency was lacking; that Electrogas was not the cheapest bidder; and that there was no real need for another gas-fired power station.
On corruption, the AG did not even find a whiff of corruption as otherwise he would have certainly mentioned it in the report. Just as he had done when he had investigated the BWSC power-station contract.
Whoever was tasked with evaluating and comparing the cost of electricity from Electrogas and the interconnector, did not compare like with like
In his report about the BWSC contract the same AG had stated that he “could only see the smoke of corruption but couldn’t see the fire”. Due, most probably, to the fact that a number of top officials who were involved had suffered from a bout of amnesia.
This time the AG did not see any “smoke of corruption”.
On “transparency”, the AG said that the process was a “comprehensive and complex one, very well structured and transparent throughout all stages of the process”. And was also “just” and an example of “best practice”.
The NAO’s report makes it clear that despite a relatively few shortcomings either of a technical or administrative nature, the choice of Electrogas represented “the most advantageous offer, as well as the cheapest for consumers”.
How different from the spin which Adrian Delia, Busuttil and their “friendly” apologists in the independent media, have given to the AG’s conclusions. As to Busuttil’s claim, that there was no need for the new power station, the NAO report states that the new power station was needed “in order to have security of supply”.
Can one imagine a scenario where the government would have taken heed of Busuttil’s advice and decided not to build the new power station? What do you think Matteo Salvini, Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister, would have done when we had - and still have - problems with our neighbouring country over illegal immigrants? I would rather have a Chinese finger on the switch rather than that of Salvini.
The main point out of which both Busuttil and the leader of the Opposition tried to make a meal, was the NAO’s claim that the cost of buying electricity from Electrogas was calculated at 50MW/H more than the cost from the interconnector.
Enemalta engineers - besides the Prime Minister and Konrad Mizzi - have already explained very clearly why the NAO’s claim is very flawed. Whoever was tasked with evaluating and comparing the cost of electricity from Electrogas and the interconnector, did not compare like with like.
Probably by the time this contribution appears in print, the government would have already published a detailed analysis of the actual cost at which Enemalta is buying electricity from Electrogas compared to the price it is buying electricity from the interconnector.
Which will clearly prove that on this point the NAO’s report was greatly flawed.
Eddy Privitera is a former casino gaming manager and former president of the St Julian’s Labour Party club.
This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece