Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1053035
18 maltatoday EXECUTIVE EDITOR Matthew Vella MANAGING EDITOR Saviour Balzan Letters to the Editor, MaltaToday, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 E-mail: dailynews@mediatoday.com.mt Letters must be concise, no pen names accepted, include full name and address maltatoday | SUNDAY • 18 NOVEMBER 2018 16 November 2008 Borg Olivier requests confidential data of 'complaining citizens' PN secretary general Paul Borg Olivier has requested government ministers to send the Nationalist Party confidential information about citizens approaching their ministries with com- plaints. In a highly confidential email sent to Law- rence Gonzi's Cabinet members, the PN's strat- egy group and the party's "customer care" sec- tion, Borg Olivier speaks of the conclusions of a meeting they all had previously in which it was decided how such information would be shared. However, the email was also inadvertently sent to a person outside the inner circle of PN and government officials, in an embarrassing twist of events prompting an immediate damage control exercise. In what amounts to a clear breach of con- fidentiality, data protection rights and any distinction between government and the party, Borg Olivier's controversial request is expected to send shockwaves in the political scene. Divulging individuals' private data to third parties without their express consent is a crimi- nal offence. Contacted yesterday, Borg Olivier would not answer about his request to minis- ters, but only said that the party had a "custom- er care unit set up, geared at channelling people to various ministers". MaltaToday is informed that former party activist Charles Demicoli and Mimcol's Ivan Falzon, who are part of the strategy group, were also involved in the information sharing. Borg Olivier also claimed that "all information held by the party and transmitted to ministers is in compliance with data protection regulations" – although MaltaToday's questions were about his request for information held by ministers to be transmitted to him, not the other way round. The prime minister's head of secretariat, Edgar Galea Curmi, said he knew of no such request from Borg Olivier. "Such a request, if made in whatever form, would not have the approval of the Prime Min- ister if not in strict compliance with the require- ments of the Data Protection Act, including the consent of the persons involved," Galea Curmi said. "No breach of confidence or data protec- tion would every find the backing of the Prime Minister." But an email Galea Curmi himself sent to all ministers and PN officials in reply to Borg Ol- ivier's request last Tuesday – after it transpired that a third party was in the know – confirms the suspicious and controversial nature of the secretary general's demands. "I would like to remind you that under no circumstances should there be any information sharing about clients seeking ministries' services unless within the context of the legal provisions related data protection," Galea Curmi wrote. MaltaToday 10 years ago Quote of the Week Political and legal responsibility are not the same Editorial ''My Chief of Staff was involved in business (before his public appointment) and I will not get involved in that.'' Joseph Muscat attempts to absolve himself from learning more about his Chief of Staff's offshore dealings THE Prime Minister's decision to await the out- come of 'inquiries into 17 Black' – before taking any decisions relating to the case – was predict- able, but also flawed. One must bear in mind that there are two dimensions to this case. One concerns the political responsibilities to be borne by the government, which entail decisions of a political (and therefore largely unregulated) nature. While there are certainly conventions to be followed, there are no strict rules governing how, or even when, a prime minister should shoulder such responsibilities. Like all his predecessors, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat enjoys wide discretion as to how to respond to any given circumstance; and past experi- ence with governments of all political hues, to be fair, suggest that his decisions will ulti- mately be guided by party-political concerns, not by decorum and propriety. This alone is a serious issue in its own right, even without factoring in the ramifica- tions of the 17 Black case. Evidently, Malta needs a framework to guarantee the proper shouldering of political responsibility in all matters. Ironically, this very issue formed the basis for one of Labour's pre-2013 battle-cries: the promise of 'transparency' and 'accountabil- ity'. It was in part to fill this lacuna that an unprecedented majority voted Muscat's La- bour Party into power in March 2013. One can only hope that the recent es- tablishment of a Parliamentary Standards Commission, and a new code of conduct for people in public office, will begin to fill the institutional void. But it came too late in the day to have any effect on the 17 Black con- troversy. Yet again, we are at the mercy of party-political considerations, in this case as in so many others. Clearly, this cannot go on much longer. The second dimension, however, concerns the legal (as opposed to political) ramifica- tions. Here, the landscape is very different. There are, in fact, an abundance of rules and regulations governing what should happen when the country is faced with serious sus- picions of high-level State corruption… and, even more so, with criminal activity of any kind. Even if the 'innocent until guilty' scenario applies to this case as much as any other, the fact remains that the law was not followed to the letter when applied to this case. The Money Laundering Act makes it clear that even the intention to launder money is a crime; and in July 2017, Magistrate Ian Far- rugia ruled there were enough grounds for a magisterial inquiry to determine whether money laundering allegations against tourism minister Konrad Mizzi and the Prime Minis- ter's chief of staff Keith Schembri warrant a criminal investigation. This impacts both the political and legal di- mensions of the 17 Black scenario. If a magis- trate decided that the allegations are serious enough to warrant a criminal investigation, it only means that a criminal investigation should have taken place regardless of any separate inquiry. The police are believed to have launched an investigation at least seven months ago: when its Economic Crimes Unit received a report from the FIAU indicating Yorgen Fenech as the owner of 17 Black. On the political front, the magistrate's con- clusions also imply that the only inquiry (or investigation of any kind) related to 17 Black is not the result of a police investigation, but of a report filed by former Opposition leader Simon Busuttil after the 2017 general election. There would, in fact, have been no inquiry at all, had the Opposition not insisted on one. Unless once again, the FIAU's report was being given the attention it merits once it was presented to the police. Moreover, Muscat himself is stalling the investigation, with an appeal together with Konrad Mizzi, Keith Schembri, Brian Tonna, Karl Cini, Malcolm Scerri and Adrian Hill- man, against the magistrate's decision. This means that if the PM wins his appeal, Mizzi and Schembri won't ever be investigated for money laundering at all. All this raises the question: if the Prime Minister is obstructing a formal inquiry on Mizzi and Schembri, how can he also insist on awaiting the outcome of the same investi- gation? Perhaps the most serious implication, how- ever, is that the situation sets a dangerous precedent for future cases of unethical po- litical behaviour. In the past, Muscat had no qualms in forcing politicians like Anglu Far- rugia, Michael Falzon and Manuel Mallia to resign, even though none of them were faced by any criminal investigation. In 2013 Muscat claimed that Farrugia's resignation (for criticising a magistrate's de- cision) reflected the difference in standards between the two parties, "with those within the PL bearing their responsibilities and the PN's Austin Gatt evading a no-confidence vote till the end". What will Muscat do now, when faced by a case which does not warrant criminal action but which may be politically inappropriate? By not sacking Schembri and Mizzi, Mus- cat has lowered the bar for any errant Labour politician. He is also sending a message to his supporters that political propriety is a sec- ondary consideration. Indeed, to many that is the only possible conclusion to be drawn from the facts of this case.