Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1503864
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 16 JULY 2023 9 INTERVIEW the value of human life on. Are these the people you think Robert Abela is trying to protect? That's the direction that logic points towards... In that case – and this is a Dev- il's advocate question, by the way; this newspaper is edi- torially in favour of a public inquiry – how do you respond to Abela's argument that (to paraphrase): 'We don't need a public inquiry, because the magisterial inquiry will estab- lish who is, and who is not, guilty for what happened"? Ah, but that's a deceitful ar- gument by the Prime Minister. He knows, as well as I do, that a public inquiry would be expect- ed to delve into other matters, apart from just the question of 'criminal culpability'. In fact, there is a whole list of ques- tions that I would like to see answered – and which can only be answered by a public inquiry; because they go beyond the in- quiring magistrate's remit. One of them is: on what cri- teria, exactly, was the land in question given as a concession, by INDIS Malta (the govern- ment company operating in- dustrial parks), to two business- men? What sort of due diligence was carried out, on the individ- uals concerned? What sort of 'surveillance' did INDIS Malta carry out, on a project that was taking place on its own land? Was there even any kind of sur- veillance, at all? But there's more. When did the Prime Minister first get to know the people involved, on a personal basis? How did he get to know them? Did he ev- er have business relations with them? Were any promises ever made...? Now: if we are ever to get an- swers to those questions... it can only realistically be through a public inquiry. They will cer- tainly not come from any mag- isterial inquiry. Besides: there are other rea- sons why a magisterial inquiry is no substitute for public one. Let's look at the numbers in- volved. And just to make sure that nobody picks on me, over any incorrect statistics: I have a document here, with all the relevant information. [Reading aloud] 'Between 2017 and to- day, there have been 59 mag- isterial inquiries into accidents on construction sites. Of these, 60% are still ongoing...' In other words, out of 59 in- quiries, in six years... only 25 have been concluded. The re- maining 34 are still under way, as we speak. So even from this perspective: the Prime Minister's argument that 'there cannot be a public inquiry, because there is already a magisterial one', just doesn't hold water. Everybody knows that they are two different types of inquiries; with different re- mits, and which will come to different types of conclusions. At the same time, those 59 in- quiries also attest that such tragedies are not quite as 'unique' as you earlier de- scribed them. At the risk of digging up ancient history: in 2000, an elderly Sliema wom- an was buried under the rubble of her own home, in a case that foreshadowed the death of Mir- iam Pace, 20 years later. Then as now, there were no public inquiries; and the family had to wait decades, for justice... Well, I can't really comment on something that happened that long ago. Bear in mind that I did my First Holy Communion in 1996! Fair enough. My point, howev- er, is that – admittedly, before your time – the Nationalist Par- ty also has a history of its own, when it came to 'covering up' for people (and 'accidents') in the construction sector. And to this day: while the PN calls for reforms, in this sector... it stops short of suggesting an- ything that may actually rock the comfortable 'government/ construction lobby' tandem. How, then, can the PN claim to be credible on this issue, to- day? As I just said, I cannot com- ment on things that happened before I entered politics, with the Nationalist Party. I am aware that things may not have been 'perfect'... but I won't com- ment further than that, about the past. What I can tell you, however, is about the Nationalist Party, as I see it today; and from my own perspective, as someone who has been militating within it, since around 2012. Let me be clear: the Nationalist Party is not against 'construc- tion', in itself. We all agree that the sector is important; because it contributes to the economy – although maybe not quite as much, as some people seem to think – and also, because it em- ploys so many people. What the Nationalist Party is completely against, however, are the 'cowboys', and the 'un- touchables'... in other words, all those who think that they are some kind of 'gods', in this sec- tor; and not just in this sector, mind you. But it does seem to be a particular problem, within the contruction industry. Because unfortunately, con- struction is also a sector where – when you have 'cowboys', and 'untouchables', who think they can do whatever they like - not only does it lead to unfair compe- tition, and the lack of a level play- ing-field, and all that... but it also leads to accidents like the one that cost Jean Paul Sofia his life. This is, in fact, yet another rea- son why a public inquiry has be- come so urgent; and it was even a point raised by MaltaToday, in one of your recent editori- als. Another thing that a public inquiry – but not a magisterial inquiry – can do, is analyse the conclusions of all past inquir- ies (i.e., the 25 that have so far been concluded) to determine whether there is any kind of 'pattern', linking all the differ- ent accidents. Because let's face it: it's not as though we've only had one or two. There has been almost an 'epidemic' of construction-re- lated accidents, in recent years. And when you consider that there has never been a single public inquiry, into any of those accidents - but instead, only magisterial inquiries that do not look at the entire context - and on top of that, we have also evi- dently failed to take into consid- eration all the conclusions, and recommendatons, of those past inquiries... Put it all together, and I would venture to say that – from an administrative point of view, at least – it means we haven't learnt anything at all, from any of those past accidents, and fa- talities. So much so, that the pattern keeps repeating itself; the accidents keep happening; and people keep dying, as a re- sult. And now, a 20-year-old man has become the latest victim, of this surreal situation. So... it is really so much to ask, for the Prime Minister to hold a public inquiry? And was it really nec- essary, for the Prime Minister to so heartlessly reduce Isabel Bonnici, and her husband, to a state where they had to come here to Parliament, practically 'begging' for justice, for their dead son? Well: on the PR front, I think we can all safely agree that things have worked out disastrously, for Robert Abela. But now that the vote has been taken – and this will be my last question – how do you envisage the po- litical fall-out, for the Labour government? Do you share the perception that this may be prove to be a 'turning point', in Abela's political fortunes? Let me put it this way: what happened yesterday in Parlia- ment will surely have been an eye-opener, to many. And this is what we have been saying for a long time. That corrup- tion is not merely the case of a few people 'taking kickbacks' - which is obviously wrong, on all counts – but it is also a tax on us all. And now, we see that it has al- so become a threat to our very lives. Yesterday, we were given a clear demonstration that life has no value, for those who per- petrate corruption and wrong- doing; and also, for those who defend it. Yesterday, it was Jean-Paul and his family. Tomorrow, it could be me, you or any of our loved ones. And after yesterday, many are feeling afraid. Afraid that, if something tragic were to happen to them... the truth will never be allowed to emerge: be- cause the government evidently attaches more importance to 'defending corruption', than to 'the value of human life'.