Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1185664
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 • 17 NOVEMBER 2019 15 November, 2009 Gonzi met Fenech and Gasan on Jerma plans THE Prime Minister was in discussions over plans by magnates George Fenech and Joe Gasan, together with their architectural con- sultant Ray Demicoli, to transform the Jerma Palace Hotel into a potential 'Portomaso of the south', this newspaper has learnt. Lawrence Gonzi, who is the minister responsi- ble for planning and environment, was shown a detailed architectural plan on the project, at the beginning of the summer. MaltaToday understands that at the same time, the owners of the Jerma hotel – de- velopers JPM Brothers – were hoping for an urgent sale of the property which they had purchased the year before, and settle outstanding loans with banks and creditors, believed to amount to millions of euros. But sources from the office of the Prime Minis- ter have said that while Gonzi welcomed the Jerma proposal, he later backtracked on supporting it when he realised the political and ethical implica- tions of his involvement in the application process. Finance Minister Tonio Fenech has found himself tied to the vicissitudes of both JPM Brothers and the Gasan-Fenech tandem. As exposed by MaltaToday, Gasan and Fenech invited the finance minister to watch Arsenal play in Spain, and travel there by private jet. The April trip took place just weeks before the entrepreneurs' meeting with Gonzi on their plans for the Jerma. And last Sunday, this newspaper revealed the claims of contractors Rainbow Turnkey Pro- jects, who were engaged to carry out works on Tonio Fenech's house by mega-developers JPM Developers, reportedly in return for the min- ister's intervention in the sale of their hotel to Gasan and Fenech. …. The meeting between Gasan and Fenech, and the Prime Minister now appears to have been a 'scouting expedition' for the two businessmen, before finalising any deal with the Montebello brothers on the sale of the Jerma. Architect Ray Demicoli said he would not divulge information pertaining to a client. "It is confidential, and no application was made to MEPA," he said when asked on the meeting with Gonzi on the Jerma plans. The Office of the Prime Minister also re- plied to questions on Gonzi's position on the plans for the Jerma. Without referring to the ethicality of his meeting with the two busi- nessmen as minister responsible for MEPA, Gonzi chose to focus on the legal correctness of the project. MaltaToday 10 years ago Quote of the Week Leave or be shown the door Editorial IN defending the actions of OPM chief-of-staff Keith Schembri in court this week, the Prime Minister overlooks a crucial detail. Schembri chose to drop a defamation suit he himself had filed against former PN leader Simon Busuttil, in order to avoid being ques- tioned about the 17 Black Dubai company. 17 Black was named as a target company of the offshore companies owned by Schembri and Tourism Minister Konrad Mizzi, exposed in the 2016 Panama Papers leak. Nonetheless, Muscat reiterated Schembri's own line of defence, that he could not answer questions that were subject to an ongoing mag- isterial inquiry. But that is, at best, a legalistic excuse to simi- larly avoid the question. For – and this is the part Muscat overlooks - there is a big differ- ence between the rules that govern how a court of law works, and the effect these have on all actors involved therein, and the rules that gov- ern the political realm. In a court of law, proof of guilt has to be without any reasonable doubt. This stands to reason, because in a democratic system one cannot risk condemning a person who is in- nocent. This argument was made by MaltaToday when the Panama papers first revealed the presence of Maltese PEPs. Despite his public position, Schembri is no exception to this rule. He may be and is prob- ably a hard-working and crucial workhorse in the Muscat administration but this alone can- not absolve him of his political responsibility. While his refusal to testify is certainly suspi- cious, in the eyes of the law it does not quite add up to an 'admission of guilt' – as Simon Busuttil understandably argued in Parliament. But these are matters for the court to decide. The rules of politics are different. Politicians have to be beyond reproach – and appear to be beyond reproach – because their public function is based on trust. It is that unwritten contract of trust between voter and politician that must be protected in a healthy democracy. Once that trust is breached, it is time for any politician to step down. Charles Mangion did this between 1996 and 1998, when an administrative fumble, not of his doing, led him to recommend a pardon for a convicted drug trafficker. Mangion realised that he had breached the trust of voters who had supported the Labour Party, which back then had declared war on drug barons. Mangion stepped down from his ministerial position even though he had only been serving as minister for a few months. Similarly, between 2008 and 2013, Chris Said stepped down from his ministerial position when he was taken to court over a case he was involved in as a lawyer to a client. Said understood that the government of the day could not have a minister facing charges that could potentially lead to imprisonment, and resigned his post to spare his government any further reputational damage. He was eventually cleared by the courts. These two instances in recent political his- tory show that the rules of politics are a differ- ent ballgame from the laws of the land. They dictate that politicians should resign, move aside, be reprimanded, or kicked out, on far less grounds than a court of law would require to establish guilt. Joseph Muscat knows this full well. He is not supporting his beleaguered chief-of-staff out of ignorance or naivety. He also probably believes that the second landslide victory he attained in 2017, not without Schembri's campaigning expertise, allows him to look the other way. The Prime Minister has himself asked poli- ticians on his side of the fence to leave over misdeeds, some of a very minor nature – Anġlu Farrugia's sacking from deputy leader, for criti- cising a magistrate, being a case in point. Likewise, Manuel Mallia had to vacate the Home Affairs Ministry, following news that his security driver had opened fire on a car in Gżira. So, now that his own chief-of-staff, Keith Schembri, has decided to play the silent game in a libel case he himself instituted, Muscat has no excuse not to act. Indeed, he did not have that excuse even before the court proceedings began. The sim- ple fact that Schembri opened a company in Panama after the general election of 2013 is a strong enough argument to warrant his resig- nation. It has only got worse with the discovery that 17 Black allegedly belongs to an investor of the power station. MaltaToday had, in fact, called for Schem- bri's resignation immediately after the Panama scandal. This leader reiterates that appeal to- day. Schembri had every right to refuse to answer questions about 17 Black in court on Monday to safeguard his rights, but he cannot have his cake and eat it, too. If Schembri wants to defend his interest in the best way possible, he cannot expect to do so while still occupying a top political post in the Office of the Prime Minister. He should have immediately stepped down, even if three years too late. And now, by refusing to answer questions in his own libel case, Schembri is simply perpetu- ating the idea that he has something to hide. The rules of politics demanded a resignation long ago; but with Schembri refusing to go, the onus is on the Prime Minister to ask his trusted friend to leave. If Schembri does not leave, Muscat must make him go. The country deserves better. "He had a choice: to go to prison or to answer the questions. Instead, he dropped the defamation suit. He basically admitted that what we have been saying is the truth" Simon Busuttil after Keith Schembri dropped his libel suit