Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1493590
maltatoday | SUNDAY •26 FEBRUARY 2023 8 INTERVIEW Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt 'Resignations are not enough'... At this morning's press con- ference in Gozo, you called on Prime Minister Robert Abela to 'shoulder his responsibility' for the fraudulent Vitals-Stew- ard deal. Abela himself has however denied any personal involvement: arguing that he wasn't even an MP – let alone Prime Minister – when the deal itself was struck. So first of all: why so much emphasis on Robert Abela (when the 'real' architects, so to speak, were Joseph Muscat, Konrad Mizzi, etc.?) And also: what do you mean, exactly, by 'shouldering responsibility', in this scenar- io? Let's start by reminding peo- ple that, when I filed this case five years ago, I did so in my ca- pacity as an active Member of Parliament: and not as a normal citizen, or private individual. Because this type of legal action could only have been initiated by either an MP – as a repre- sentative of the people – or by the Attorney General. Now, there were a number of parties to this case: starting with Vitals themselves (subsequent- ly, renamed Steward Health- care); and also the Chief Exec- utive of Malta Industrial Parks; the Chairman of the Board of Governors at the Lands Au- thority, and – I'm naming him last, even though he was actu- ally first on the list – The Prime Minister of Malta... who was Joseph Muscat, at the time; but then, Robert Abela stepped in to fill his shoes. So Robert Abela was an in- trinsic part of this case, from the moment he became Prime Minister. Meanwhile, all the defendants first put up a preliminary plea, claiming that I had no 'business' (in legal terms, we call it 'jurid- ical interest') in actually filing the case... but the judge shot that down, point-blank. And then – also as a prelimi- nary plea – each of the defend- ants argued that they were not, themselves, the responsible parties. In legal jargon, we all it 'legittimu kontradittur': ba- sically, they all argued that the courts had intimated 'the wrong person'... But let me focus only on the Prime Minister, for now. In his case, the judge specifically said: "How can the PM even say that: when these contracts were all granted by the Government of Malta; the properties them- selves belonged to the Govern- ment of Malta; all the agree- ments were negotiated, and signed, by the Government of Malta... and at law, the Govern- ment of Malta is represented, 'in primis', by the Prime Minis- ter himself?" In other words: the Judge ruled that the Prime Minister WAS, in fact, fully and directly responsible... From what you've said so far, though: if Robert Abela was 'responsible', it was only in the sense that he had inherited the office from Joseph Muscat; and not because he had orchestrat- ed the fraud itself.... No: what I'm saying is that Abela's responsibility goes way beyond just that. For one thing: this case did not begin, and end, under the tenure of Joseph Muscat... with Robert Abela on- ly coming into the picture after- wards. Insofar as chronology is con- cerned: Robert Abela became Prime Minister while the case itself was still ongoing; and he could always have chosen to change the direction of his de- fence strategy. And yet, until the very last moment, he kept directing his legal counsel to continue defending – not the people of Malta and Gozo – but these foreign companies, and their fraudulent deals. I also want to point out a par- ticular paragraph (p 502) of the ruling [Note: Delia here reads out the paragraph in full] in which the Judge questions how the government even managed to get itself into a position, whereby it could be 'pressured' (or 'blackmailed') by Steward's 'fraudulent, and possibly crim- inal' actions. What this effectively means is that – apart from the fact that the contracts themselves were drawn up illegally; and that Steward itself was in breach of basically ALL the terms and conditions – the court also ruled that there had been fraud- ulency, on three counts: 1) Before the contract was even drawn up: because there was a secret 'memorandum of understanding'; and therefore, collusion [between government and Vitals]; 2) During the evaluation pro- cess [when there was no 'due diligence' on the investors, etc.] 3) After the contract was awarded: when there was both the 'non-compliance exten- sion'; and also – to literally 'rub salt into the wound' - the infa- mous E100 million 'side-agree- ment' [between Konrad Mizzi and Steward]: which basically guaranteed that, even if Stew- ard were to be found in breach of contract... they would still get paid a bonus E100 million, in tax-payers' money... Sorry to interrupt: but there's no need to summarise the en- tire ruling (otherwise, we'll be here all day)... OK, but what I was coming to is... quite frankly, it is absolute- ly unprecedented, that a ruling handed down by the Maltese law-courts would find such clear evidence of 'fraudulen- cy' – not to mention 'possible criminality' – in any govern- ment contract whatsoever... let alone, a government contract of such magnitude. And yet: what was the Gov- ernment's response, to such a damning ruling? Basically, it issued a brief statement – amounting to literally just 'four lines' – which simply said that: "the Government is analysing this sentence; and in any even- tuality, it will ensure that the national interest is safeguard- ed." [Pause] Sorry, but… this was right after the PM found him- self faced with a judgment, which ruled – in no uncertain terms – that his government did NOT 'safeguard the nation- al interest'. On the contrary: Abela's government was found to have totally BETRAYED the national interest… As such, Prime Minister Rob- ert Abela cannot claim that he will now be the one to 'safe- guard the national interest'. Nor can he even claim to be the one who will now 'rescind the con- tract'… because there is now a court order, to that effect. The court even appointed a Notary; and gave him three months to actually do it. So even the gov- ernment fails to implement this ruling… there is someone else, Former PN leader ADRIAN DELIA argues that this week's milestone court ruling was also a timely reminder of what the Nationalist Party has always been about: the 'fight against injustice'