Corruption is colour-blind

The debate on local corruption is never-ending. Corruption is colour-blind and is heavily dependent upon a clientelist culture, as well as on the existence of weak or weakened institutions. In addition, unfortunately, there is currently no political will to address either.

The never-ending public utterances on zero-tolerance to corruption are not matched with clear-cut action.

The resistance by Cabinet Ministers Edward Scicluna, Konrad Mizzi and Chris Cardona to the initiation of a magisterial criminal inquiry into the allegation concerning their criminal complicity in the Vitals Global Healthcare Hospitals deal is mind-boggling. A Prime Minister with a zero-tolerance to corruption would have requested the inquiry himself. Alternatively, he should have been the first to support the NGO-requested investigation.

A Labour Party which has a zero-tolerance to corruption would have sent Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri packing ages ago. The fact that Labour leader Joseph Muscat did not so act signifies that he is willing to turn a Nelson eye to his colleagues’ misdemeanours. In these circumstances a corruption zero-tolerant Labour Party would have given notice to its leader that his days are numbered if he does not change his ways. The fact that the Labour Party did not so act gives one clear message: it is corruption-tolerant.

It would be pertinent to point out that, in the initial stages of the Panama Papers debate, various members of the Labour Party Parliamentary group reacted behind closed doors. Way back in April and May of 2016, leaks in the media had indicated that not all of the Labour Party is anesthetised in its reactions to allegations of corruption. The internal debate, as then reported, was fierce, but it did not lead to concrete action.

The Nationalist Party, although in opposition, is no alternative to all this, as its criticism, though correct, is not credible.

The Nationalist Party has elected a leader who does not inspire much confidence in the public, primarily as a result of the investigative reports published by Daphne Caruana Galizia which unearthed information that illustrated the various instances in which he acted unethically. Holders of political office have no choice as to when to switch on to an ethical behaviour mode. Their behaviour when they were not under the glaring spotlight of public opinion is most indicative of their ethical worth. A case in point is Adrian Delia’s legal representation of clients benefitting from earnings from London-based brothels in respect of which published information he instituted legal action that he later withdrew. Subsequently he took no action which disproves anything that was published about this brothel business.

Likewise, no action was taken in respect of the sworn testimony of senior PN Member of Parliament Claudio Grech when giving witness in front of the Public Accounts Committee in its inquiry on the oil scandal. Grech had then stated that he did not recollect if he had ever met George Farrugia, the prime mover in the oil scandal, who was eventually pardoned to reveal all. The then PN leader, Simon Busuttil, had not reacted to this behaviour and no action whatsoever was initiated against Claudio Grech by the PN in what most consider a case of avoiding spilling information of relevance.

In view of its lack of credibility, whenever the Parliamentary Opposition – as presently constituted- speaks up, the impact of what has been revealed about Government’s dubious practices is severely diluted.

This could be viewed also with reference to serious issues of bad governance which communicate one clear message: they are cut from the same cloth. A case in point is Mario Demarco’s involvement in the dB contract negotiations as legal advisor to the dB Group, at a time when he was Deputy Leader of the Opposition and its spokesperson on Finance. Though Mario Demarco issued a public apology when the matter made headlines, the damage done was substantial. The clear message conveyed was that the better elements of the Parliamentary Opposition are incapable of drawing a line between their public duties and their private interests.

We may also deem it fit to remember the various reports issued by the Auditor-General on the mis-management of government property. At the time, this was the political responsibility of the Hon Jason Azzopardi but at no time was he asked by his party to shoulder political responsibility for the mess that he left behind.

Bad governance and corruption are cousins; one leads to the other and at times one is easily mistaken for the other.

At Alternattiva Demokratika we have always been clear: we are zero-tolerant in respect of both corruption and bad governance. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the PN and the PL.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 17 November 2019

Keith Schembri: mhux waħdu

Nhar it-Tnejn, Keith Schembri rtira kawża ta’ libell kontra Simon Busuttil. Kawża li infetħet għax Simon Busuttil qal li Keith Schembri hu korrott.

Il-konsegwenza loġika u ovvja issa hi li Keith Schembri mhux jiddejjaq li hu jkun deskritt li hu korrott. Naħseb li ma hemm l-ebda mod ieħor kif tħares lejn il-materja. Iddur kemm iddur b’argumenti legali, din hi l-unika konklużjoni li tagħmel sens. Miskin, beża’ li jinkrimina ruħu.

Din min naħa l-oħra twassal għal konsiderazzjoni waħda bażika: il-Prim Ministru Joseph Muscat ma għamel xejn wara dan kollu. Allura ifisser li anke Joseph Muscat mhux jiddejjaq li ċ-Chief of Staff tal-uffiċċju tiegħu ma baqax jinsisti għas-sodisfazzjon mingħand min iddeskrivieh li hu korrott.

F’kull pajjiż iċċivilizzat Keith Schembri kien jitneħħa immedjatament mill-karigi pubbliċi kollha li jokkupa. Ovvjament dan mhux ser iseħħ. Għax Keith Schembri mhux waħdu.

Il-Partit Laburista baqa’ sieket: ħasra għax naf ħafna Laburisti li xejn ma jaqblu ma dan.

Min ma jiġġilidx kontra l-korruzzjoni hu korrott huwa ukoll. Dan qatt ma kien ċar daqs illum.

Anke l-Partit Laburista irid jerfa’ l-piz li ser ikollu jġorr minħabba s-skiet tiegħu.

Wara d-deċiżjoni tal-Qala: għalfejn stenbħu issa?

Alfred Sant qal li c-Chairman tal-Kummissjoni għall-Kontroll tal-Iżvilupp għandha tirreżenja. Sewwa qal u naqbel miegħu. Inżid ngħid li jmissha ilha li warrbet jew twarrbet.

Jason Micallef u Cyrus Engerer qalulna li kull min ivvota favur l-applikazzjoni tal-Qala għandu jirreżenja! Sewwa qalu: imma għax ma semmewx lil Clayton Bartolo b’ismu: il-Membru Parlamentari tal-Labour fil-Bord tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar li ivvota favur u li kontinwament jipprova jistaħba wara subgħajh biex jiġġustifika l-vot tiegħu favur? Ghal Clayton mhux l-ewwel darba li qiegħed taħt il-lenti!

X’inhu jiġri biex issa dawn ukoll qed jitkellmu favur riżenja ta’ min ikun ħa sehem f’deċiżjoni stupida? In-nies hemm barra ilhom jgħiduha din, għal diversi membri tal-Bord tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar!

Il-ħniżrijijet li nħabbtu wiċċna magħhom fl-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar huma bosta iktar u ikbar mill-kaz tal-Qala. Imma dwar dawn ftit ikun hemm min jiftaħ ħalqu.

Marthese Portelli qalet li ma tridx ikollha x’taqsam iktar mal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar, issa!

Joseph Muscat, dalgħodu qal li d-deċiżjoni hi waħda insensittivà! X’tippretendi jekk għandna Bord li għala biebu mis-sensittività ambjentali? Dawn huma l-konsegwenzi, għax bħal dejjem, li tiżra’ taħsad!

Il-problema għandha egħruq fil-fond u uħud minnhom iwasslu sar-raba’ sular. Id-dmugħ tal-kukkudrilli issa ftit li xejn ser isolvi.

Din id-deċiżjoni hi l-konsegwenza loġika ta’ snin tal-inkompetenza grassa. L-ewwel kellna lill-bidilli ta’ George Pullicino u issa għandna lil dawn! L-unika differenza hi fl-ismijiet.

It-tattoos ta’ Joseph bir-Russu?

Dan l-aħħar fuq il-media elettronika kellna storja dwar it-tattoo ta’ Joseph Muscat. Filwaqt li mhux ċar x’fiha eżatt din it-tattoo, sirna nafu li hemm iktar minnhom li s’issa ma jidhrux!

Storja li tqanqal xi ftit kurżità. Għal uħud kienet ukoll okkazjoni għal siegħa mogħdija taż-żmien, b’argumenti dwar fejn jistgħu jkunu dawn it-tattoos.

Bla dubju aħbar li tnissel tbissima meta tqis li Joseph Muscat mhux l-uniku membru tal-Kabinett li hu dilettant tat-tattoo!

L-aħbarijiet mill-Qorti illum huma ta’ tħassib kbir. Iwasslu għal ħafna mistoqsijiet dwar x’logħob għaddej fl-ibħra Maltin u barra minnhom.

Uħud mill-gazzetti online irrappurtaw dak li ntqal fil-Qorti mill-avukati ta’ Darren Debono dwar pressjoni mill-Ambaxxata Amerikana biex issir magħrufa informazzjoni dwar il-vapuri Russi li ma tħallewx jidħlu Malta biex jieħdu l-fjul.

X’ġara? Ingħataw il-fjuwil xorta barra mill-ibħra territorjali, riedu jkunu jafu mill-Ambaxxata Amerikana?

Min jaf x’ġara?

Forsi iktar faċli nkunu nafu fejnhom it-tattoos ta’ Joseph! Forsi bir-Russu ukoll, għalhekk ma setax jaqrahom Chris Peregin!

Il-gwerra ċivili fil-Partit Nazzjonalista

Il-gwerra ċivili li bħalissa għaddejja fil-PN ma hi ser tagħmel ġid lil ħadd. La fil-PN u l-anqas barra minnu.

Kuntrarju għal dak li jingħad minn uħud f’mumenti ta’ saħna u rabja, l-qagħda attwali tal-PN la ħi ħtija ta’ Adrian Delia u l-anqas ma hi ħtija ta’ Simon Busuttil. Għalkemm it-tnejn li huma ikkontribwew għad-diżintegrazzjoni tal-partit, pass wara pass, fl-aħħar it-tnejn huma ukoll vittmi ta’ ċirkustanzi li ilhom jiżviluppaw sa minn l-aħħar leġislatura li fiha l-Partit Nazzjonalista kien fil-Gvern.

Kien żmien li l-PN fil-Parlament iffaċċa rewwixta fil-grupp parlamentari. Irribellaw mhux biss dawk li eventwalment ivvutaw kontra l-PN fil-Gvern, jiġifieri Franco Debono, Jeffrey Pullicino-Orlando u Jesmond Mugliett, imma bosta oħrajn fuq materji serji ħafna. Xi darba l-istorja reali tinkiteb.

Tiftakru, per eżempju lil Robert Arrigo, illum Viċi Kap, iqabbel lit-tmexxija tal-PN (ta’ Lawrence Gonzi) ma karozza miexja fuq 4 flat tyres?

Hu ċar ħafna li l-kriżi tal-lum fil-PN għandha egħruq fondi li jmorru lura s-snin. Kriżi li tħalliet tikber mingħajr ma tkun indirizzata sakemm issa tant kibret bil-konsegwenzi disastrużi li qed naraw jiżviluppaw.

Ir-riżenji u l-isfiduċja ma huma ser isolvu xejn. Il-PN għandu bżonn li jfittex il-kawża vera u jindirizzha. Sakemm jagħmel hekk ser ikompli jitmermer biċċa biċċa.

(żieda: qed inżid kumment li għamilt fuq facebook bħala parti minn diskussjoni għaddejja fuq dan il-blogpost)

Il-problema hi kbira għax ma ġietx indirizzata għal snin twal.

Kien hemm żmien meta setgħet tissolva bi ftit ħsara. Issa, naħseb li tkun xi tkun is-soluzzjoni, l-ħsara hi enormi. Dan jgħodd ukoll f’kaz li ma jsir xejn, f’liema każ il-ħsara hi ikbar.

Dawn tiegħi huma riflessjonijiet minn barra. Minn barra ma nippretendix li nista’ nidentifika l-aħjar soluzzjoni imma biss li niġbed l-attenzjoni li din is-soluzzjoni tista’ tkun identifikata biss bħala riżultat ta’ analiżi serja.

L-eserċizzju m’għandux ikun dwar min għandu t-tort jew ir-raġun iżda dwar soluzzjonijiet prattiċi.

Hu ovvju li kull min qed jitkellem għandu l-preġudizzji tiegħu jew tagħha. Imma hu importanti li fid-diskussjoni li qed tiżviluppa jonqos (preferibilment jieqaf) il-kliem ta’ disprezz u insult għax jekk dan ser jibqa’ jikkarga mhux diffiċli ħafna biex tifhem x’ser ikunu l-konklużjonijiet.

Għalkemm jiena llum qiegħed immexxi partit politiku ieħor huwa fatt li l-parti l-kbira tal-ħidma politika tiegħi għamiltha fil-PN, li kien sostanzjalment differenti mill-PN tal-lum. Jiena konxju li t-tluq tiegħi mill-PN ftit iktar minn ħdax-il sena ilu kienet r-reazzjoni tiegħi għall-fażi inizzjali ta’ din is-saga. Dakinnhar jiena għamilt ġudizzju li l-affarijiet probabbilment imorru għall-agħar. Sfortunatament hekk ġara.

 

Kunflitt ta’interess fl-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar

Il-validità tal-permess tal-ippjanar dwar il-proġett tad-dB f’Pembroke ġie ikkontestat fuq bażi ta’ tmintax-il raġuni differenti, li jvarjaw minn kunflitt ta’ interess sa miżinterpretazzjoni u/jew applikazzjoni żbaljata tar-regoli dwar l-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art.

F’dan l-istadju, l-Qorti hi hu tħassar il-permess dehrilha li ma kienx neċessarju li tidħol fid-dettall dwar kull waħda minn minn dawn it-tminatax-il raġuni: waqfet fl-ewwel waħda, il-kunflitt ta’ interess tal-membru tal-Bord tal-Ippjanar Matthew Pace u l-interess tiegħu f’aġenzija li ġġib il-quddiem il-negozju tal-propjetà. Żewġ interessi li b’mod ovvju, għal kulħadd ħlief għal Pace, l-Awtorità u l-Gvern, ġie meqjus li huma konfliġġenti. L-aġenzija li fiha Matthew Pace għandu interess kienet diġa qed tirreklama l-bejgħ tal-appartamenti sa minn qabel mal-permess tal-ippjanar ġie approvat, bil-vot tiegħu stess favur l-applikazzjoni.

Il-Qorti użat il-frażijiet “kunflitt ta’ interess” u “nuqqas ta’ trasparenza”. Fl-aħħar mill-aħħar, imma, b’Malti sempliċi u li jinftiehem mill-ewwel dan hu kaz ta’ regħba da parti tal-membru tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar li hu nvolut kif ukoll inkompetenza grassa da parti ta’ dawk li ħatruh fuq l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar meta l-interessi tiegħu kienu diġà magħrufa.

Ilkoll nafu li l-membri tal-Bord tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar jinħatru direttament mill-Prim Ministru, u allura ma nistgħux inkunu iktar ċari minn hekk: huwa u jaħtar lil Matthew Pace bħala membru tal-Bord tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar, il-Prim Ministru naqas milli jifhem il-konsegwenzi tal-ħatra ta’ agent tal-propjetà fuq il-bord li jieħu d-deċiżjonijiet dwar l-ippjanar tal-użu tal-art.

Nhar it-Tlieta, l-Qorti annullat deċiżjoni waħda tal-Bord tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar li fiha ipparteċipa Matthew Pace. Kemm ilu li nħatar fuq il-Bord, sa mill-2013, Matthew Pace, ħa sehem f’numru sostanzjali ta’ deċiżjonijiet oħra li ttieħdu mill-Bord tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar. Il-mistoqsija loġika hi dwar il-każi l-oħra li dwarhom ukoll kellu interess u li anke hawn dan l-interess ma ġiex iddikjarat. In-numru ta’ każi kontroversjali deċiżi mhux żgħir imma din il-mistoqsija qatt ma saret s’issa, ta’ l-inqas fil-pubbliku.

Il-każ, kif emfasizzat il-Qorti, hu wieħed li jiffoka fuq l-imġieba ta’ dawk li jokkupaw ħatra pubblika.

Il-membri tal-Bord tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar għandhom l-obbligu li jissottomettu dikjarazzjioni annwali dwar l-assi u l-interessi tagħhom. Ikun ferm interessanti kieku l-pubbliku jkollu informazzjoni preċiża dwar x’sar mid-dikjarazzjonijiet tal-membri kurrenti tal-Bord. Is-Segretarju tal-Bord tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar, huwa u jixhed quddiem it-Tribunal ta’ Reviżjoni dwar l-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar qal li dawn id-dikjarazzjonijiet ma setgħux jintbagħtu, kif suppost, lill-Awditur Ġenerali, għax dawn ma ġewx aċċettati min-naħa tiegħu. Imma, jirriżulta minn tweġibiet elettroniċi tal-Awditur Ġenerali, li wkoll ġew ippreżentati bħala xhieda, li dan mhux il-kaz: l-Awditur Ġenerali qatt ma irrifjuta li jaċċetta dawn id-dikjarazzjonijiet dwar l-assi u l-interessi tal-membri tal-Bord tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar.

Minn dan kollu jqum il-punt dwar kemm huma effettivi l-kontrolli stabiliti mil-liġi dwar il-posizzjoni etika ta’ dawk maħtura bħala membri tal-Bord. Id-dikjarazzjoni tal-assi u l-interessi, sal-lum meqjusa bħala għodda importanti qiesha saret ta’ bla ebda siwi u dan minħabba li wara li ġiet sottomessa ma kienitx eżaminata mill-Awditur Ġenerali. Dan iħarbat il-proċess kollu ta’ kontroll, għax hu ovvju li l-Awditur Ġenerali ġie ostakolat milli jeżamina d-dikjarazzjonijiet li saru u għaldaqstant ma setax jiġbed l-attenzjoni għall-konflitti ovvji li jirriżultaw meta taħtar agent tal-propjetà biex jiddeċiedi fuq materji dwar l-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art.

Nittama li l-Awditur Ġenerali, anke issa, jipprova jirrimedja billi jeżamina d-dikjarazzjonijiet li saru ħalli l-kontrolli jkunu applikati sakemm u safejn hu umanament possibli.

L-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art hu diġa, minnu innifsu, kontroversjali, għax kważi dejjem jinvolvi numru mhux żgħir ta’ interessi konfliġġenti. Tal-inqas għandna nassiguraw li dawk maħtura biex jiddeċiedu jimxu bir-reqqa.

 

Ippubblikat fuq Illum: il-Ħadd 23 ta’Ġunju 2019

Managing conflict of interest at the Planning Authority

The validity of the planning permit in respect of the dB project at Pembroke has been contested on the basis of eighteen different reasons, ranging from conflict of interest to misinterpretation and/or wrongful application of land use planning policy.

In its decision, declaring the dB Pembroke permit null and void earlier this week, the Court did not consider it necessary, at this stage, to delve into each and every one of these 18 reasons: it stopped at the first one: the conflict of interest of one member of the Planning Board, Matthew Pace, whose interest in an estate agency was found to be an obvious no-go area. Apparently the conflict is obvious to everyone, except Pace, the Authority and Government. Even before the final planning decision, his estate agency was already advertising the sale of the apartments – the construction of which was yet to be approved –  with the support of his vote.

The legal terms used in the Court decision are “conflict of interest” and “lack of transparency”. In the end, however, it all boils down to greed on the part of the Planning Authority Board Member and consequently gross incompetence on the part of those appointing him as a member of the Planning Authority Board when his interests were well known.

We all know that the PA Board members are appointed directly by the Prime Minister, so I cannot be clearer than this: in the appointment of Matthew Pace as a member of the Planning Authority Board, the Prime Minister failed to understand the implications of appointing an estate agent as a land-use planning decision-taker.

Last Tuesday, the Court annulled one planning decision in which Matthew Pace had participated. Since his appointment as a member of the Planning Authority Board in 2013, Matthew Pace has participated in a large number of planning decisions. The logical question to ask is in what other cases did he have a conflict of interest that was also not declared. There is a countless list of controversial cases decided upon over the years, but this issue has never arisen, at least not in public.

The case, as emphasised by the Court in its decision, is one that puts the focus on the behaviour of those appointed to public office.

The members of the Board of the Planning Authority are duty bound to submit an annual declaration regarding their assets and interests . It would be interesting if reliable information was available regarding what has happened to the declarations submitted by the current Board members. The Secretary of the Planning Authority Board, when giving evidence at the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, stated that these declarations could not be sent – as required – to the Auditor General, as they were not accepted at that end. However, it is known from replies to emails by the Auditor General, also presented as evidence, that this is not the case.

This raises the serious question as to the effectiveness of the checks required by law on the ethical suitability of the Board members. One such tool – the declaration of assets and interests – has been rendered useless as clearly it is not being examined by the Auditor General when submitted. This stultifies the whole process as the Auditor General was obviously impeded from examining the declarations made and, consequently, could not draw attention to the obvious conflicts arising as a result of having an estate agent appointed to make decisions regarding land-use planning applications.

It is hoped that, even at this late stage, the Auditor General will consider it appropriate to examine the matter in order that adequate checks are as effective as is humanly possible. Land-use planning will always be controversial because it involves numerous conflicting interests. The least we can do is to ensure that those entrusted with taking these decisions act correctly.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 23 June 2019

X’inhu għaddej bejn il-PN u 17 Black ?

L-aħbar fit-Times tal-Ħadd dwar il-laqgħa bejn il-Membri Parlamentari tal-PN Kristy Debono u Hermann Schiavone ma Yorgen Fenech ta’ 17 Black fil-21 sular tat-torri ta’ Portomaso hi prova tal-wiċċ b’ieħor tal-Partit Nazzjonalista.

Is-17 Black hi kumpanija (inkorporata fid-Dubai) li dwarha hemm allegazzjoni ta’ tixħim li fih jissemmew Konrad Mizzi u Keith Schembri. Niftakru fl-emails dwar l-iskandlu Panama fejn intqal minn fejn ġejjin il-miljuni fil-kontijiet bankarji ta’ Mizzi u Schembri.
Dakinnhar il-PN għamilha tal-paladin kontra l-korruzzjoni. Imma llum imur għand l-istess 17Black biex jitolbu l-għajnuna.

Kristy Debono qalet li talbet għajnuna dwar użu ta’ sala żgħira għall-konferenzi. Hermann Schiavone min-naħa l-oħra kien evażiv u ma riedx jagħti informazzjoni.

Kif tista’ temmen lil dawn in-nies (u lil sħabhom) meta jitkellmu kontra l-korruzzjoni?
Kristy Debono u Hermann Schiavone għandhom l-obbligu li jagħtu spjegazzjoni pubblika. Anzi, li kieku l-Partit Nazzjonalista kien serju, diġa ssospendihom.

Imma ilna nafu, li s-serjetà ma toqgħodx tal-Pietà.

Il-kontabilità ……….. taħt l-effett tal-loppju

Il-Kummisarju tal-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar fl-uffiċċju ta’ l-Ombudsman, iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa ikkonkluda li mhu affari ta’ ħadd jekk membri tal-Bord tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar jattendux jew le l-laqgħat tal-Bord. Dik biċċa tagħhom: hi responsabbiltà tagħhom dwar kif jaġixxu biex iwettqu r-responsabbiltajiet tagħhom. Meta għaldaqstant, Jacqueline Gili kienet pprovduta bis-servizz ta’ ajruplan privat biex ikun iffaċilitat li hi tattendi għal-laqgħa tal-Bord tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar li fiha kienet diskussa u approvata l-monstrosità tal-dB Group f’Pembroke kien hemm indħil mhux permissibli fil-proċeduri tal-istess awtorità.

Is-Sur Johann Buttigieg, Chairman Eżekuttiv tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar, ikkonferma pubblikament li d-deċiżjoni li jġib lil Jacqueline Gili bil-ajruplan privat minn Catania, u jeħodha lura Catania biex tkompli tgawdi l-btala mal-familja tagħha, kienet deċiżjoni tiegħu. F’pajjiż fejn il-governanza tajba hi pprattikata, mhux ipprietkata biss, is-Sur Buttigieg kien jirreżenja immedjatament, inkella kien jitkeċċa bla dewmien hekk kif l-aħbar kienet magħrufa pubblikament. Dan apparti mid-dell kbir li nxteħet fuq il-validità tad-deċżjoni li ttieħdet bħala riżultat ta’ dan l-indħil fil-ħidma tal-Bord.
Imma, huwa fatt magħruf li l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar mhiex kapaċi tiddeċiedi fuq kaz daqshekk ċar ta’ tmexxija ħażina. M’għandiex il-kuraġġ li taġixxi.

Ma nistgħux nistennew imġieba mod ieħor. Dawk maħtura fl-awtoritajiet pubbliċi huma kkundizzjonati dwar kif iġibu ruħhom mill-mod kif jaraw lill-politiċi li jkunu ħatruhom iġibu ruħhom. U ngħiduha kif inhi: ma tantx għandhom eżempji tajba fuq xiex jimxu.
L-istorja tal-Panama Papers hi waħda relattivament riċenti. Il-Prim Ministru Joseph Muscat, malli sar jaf li l-Ministru Konrad Mizzi u ċ-Chief of Staff tiegħu Keith Schembri, waqqfu kumpaniji fl-Amerika Ċentrali, fil-Panama, li hi rinomata bħala post fejn taħbi l-flus u tevita t-taxxi, flok ma keċċihom minnufih, qiesu qagħad jiggusthom daqslikieku ma ġara xejn. Dwar x’seta ġara iktar mill-kumpaniji ta’ Mizzi u Schembri u t-tielet kumpanija misterjuża (Egrant), s’issa għad ma nġiebu l-ebda provi. Dan intqal mill-Qrati repetutament, avolja d-deċiżjonijiet tal-Qrati ġew interpretati b’mod li qieshom naddfu lil uħud assoċjati mal-politika minn kull ħtija possibli. Il-fatti huma mod ieħor, kompletament differenti.

S’issa, bla dubju, hemm assenza ta’ provi kredibbli li jindikaw xi ħtija kriminali. Imma ma nistgħux ngħidu l-istess dwar l-imġieba ta’ dawk involuti. Il-provi magħrufa juru bl-iktar mod ċar li tal-inqas hemm imġieba żbaljata u mhix etika u dan minnu nnifsu jiġġustifika sanzjonijiet politiċi.

Dan ma japplikax biss għal dawk il-persuni li huma esposti għall-politika u li issemmew fil-Panama Papers. Japplika ukoll għal xenarji differenti f’kull kamp politiku.

Fuq livell kompletament differenti, jiena diversi drabi għamilt referenza għal tliet rapporti tal-Awditur Ġenerali dwar ir-responsabbiltajiet politiċi ta’ Jason Azzopardi, ilkoll konnessi mal-amministrazzjoni ta’ art pubblika. F’kull wieħed minn dawn it-tliet rapporti l-ex-Ministru Jason Azzopardi kien iċċensurat b’qawwa kbira. Ilkoll niftakru meta f’Ottubru 2017 waqt laqgħa pubblika tal-Kumitat Parlamentari għall-Kontijiet Pubbliċi uffiċjal pubbliku kien xehed li l-ex Ministru Azzopardi kien jaf b’dak kollu li kien għaddej. Imma Jason Azzopardi jibqa’ jilgħabha tal-iblah u jagħmel ta’ birruħu li ma kellux idea dwar dak li kien għaddej madwaru.

L-Opposizzjoni s’issa għadha ma ġegħlitux jerfa’ r-responsabbiltà ta’ għemilu. La ġiegħlet lilu u l-anqas lil oħrajn. Bilfors, f’dan il-kuntest, allura wieħed jistaqsi dwar kif l-Opposizzjoni tippretendi li neħduha bis-serjetà meta tkun kritika ta’ ħaddieħor. Għax l-ewwel u qabel kollox, l-Opposizzjoni għandha tkun kapaċi tapplika għaliha dak li ġustament tippretendi b’insistenza mingħand ħaddieħor.

Sfortunatament il-klassi politika presentment fil-ħatra mhiex kapaċi tipprattika dak li tipprietka. Meta l-partiti politiċi fil-parlament huma b’kuxjenza mraqqda, qiesha taħt l-effett tal-loppju, m’għandniex għalfejn niskantaw b’dak li naraw madwarna.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum :13 ta’ Jannar 2019

 

Anesthetised accountability

Earlier this week, the Planning and Environment Commissioner at the Ombudsman’s office held that it is nobody’s business as to whether or not the Planning Authority’s Board members attend Board meetings: this is a matter for their exclusive concern. The provision of a jet plane to encourage and facilitate the attendance of Ms Jacqueline Gili at the PA Board meeting which considered and approved the dB monstrosity at Pembroke is thus considered as an undue interference and influence in the Planning Authority’s operations.

The Planning Authority Executive Chairman Johann Buttigieg is on record as having taken the responsibility for the decision to bring Ms Gili over to Malta from Catania by air and facilitating her return to continue her interrupted family holiday.

In a country where good governance is upheld, Mr Buttigieg would have resigned forthwith and, in the absence of such a resignation, he would have been fired on the spot as soon as information on the matter became public knowledge.

In addition one would also have had to deal with the fallout on the validity of the decision so taken as a result of such an undue interference.

It is, however, well known that the Planning Authority is incapable of reacting to such blatant bad governance. It is common knowledge that that it lacks the proverbial balls, making it incapable of acting properly.

But we cannot realistically expect otherwise, because the appointees to public authorities mirror the behaviour of their political masters. We cannot expect accountability from the appointees if those that appoint them continuously try to wriggle out of shouldering their responsibilities. There are, of course, some exceptions.

The Panama Papers saga is recent enough. Instead of firing Minister Konrad Mizzi and his Chief of Staff Keith Schembri on the spot for setting up companies in the Central American tax-haven, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat acted as if nothing of significance ever happened. What could have happened – in addition to the setting up Mizzi’s and Schembri’s companies and the third mysterious one (Egrant) is not so far provable. This has been stated repeatedly by our Courts, although the relative decisions have been repeated misinterpreted as absolving various politically exposed people (PEP) from any wrong doing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There is no doubt that, so far, there is an absence of proof indicating potential criminal liability. However, as a minimum, there is sufficient proof in the public domain pointing towards both errors of judgement and unethical behaviour which, on its own, is sufficient to justify immediate political sanctions.

This is not only applicable to all the PEP featuring in the Panama Papers saga. It is also applicable to other different scenarios across the political divide.

On a completely different level, I refer to the three reports by Auditor-General concerning the political responsibilities of Jason Azzopardi, all three of which deal with the management of government-owned land. In all three cases, former Minister Jason Azzopardi was heavily censored. I remember when a senior civil servant testified during a sitting of Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee in October 2017, in public session, that then Minister Azzopardi was aware of all the goings-on. Yet Jason Azzopardi sanctimoniously plays the idiot and feigns ignorance of the goings-on around his desk.

As yet, the Opposition has not yet held him (and others) to account. The Opposition cannot expect to be taken seriously when it rightly censors others before it musters sufficient courage to put its own house in order.

Unfortunately, the political class currently in office is not capable of practising what its preaches. With such anesthetised political parties, it is no wonder that this country has long gone to the dogs.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 13 January 2019