MaltaToday previous editions

11 maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 11 DECEMBER 2013 Editorial MaltaToday, MediaToday Co. Ltd, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 MANAGING DIRECTOR: ROGER DE GIORGIO MANAGING EDITOR: SAVIOUR BALZAN Tel: (356) 21 382741-3, 21 382745-6 • Fax: (356) 21 385075 Website: www.maltatoday.com.mt E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt A recipe for corruption Evidence to emerge this week from the ongoing corruption case involving kickbacks in Malta's oil procurement regime appears to confirm what many of us have long suspected: i.e., that there exists a network of cosy relationships between representatives of large commercial interests, and the corridors of power at Castille. It transpires beyond question that bidders for a government contract were privy to details concerning the tendering process itself. Indeed one email, dated 16 May 2008, informs a prospective bidder about the outcome of the bid before the contract was even awarded. George Farrugia, State witness in the case against Tancred Tabone and Frank Sammut, confirms in writing to George Stassis, manager of Moil Oil Trading Company Ltd that his was the likeliest bid, based specifically on insider knowledge of the Trandport Minister's own preferences. "I know for a fact that his (rival bidder Falzon Oil) relations with Enemalta and with Aust. [Energy Minister Gatt] is very bad," Farrugia tells Stassis, who goes on to win the bid. Perhaps more revealing is Stassis's reply: "Hi Partner, Thank You! I have a feeling we will play ball one way or the other! Take Care!" In a sense, these previously unpublished emails tell us more about the nature of these relationships than the bare bones of their contents. What emerges is the impression of a deeply entrenched backscratching culture between the political and commercial classes, greatly compounded and exacerbated by the lack of corresponding transparency laws. All this stands in sharp contrast with categorical statements made by both former Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and minister Austin Gatt shortly before the last election, in which they repeatedly and explicitly disavowed all knowledge of George Farrugia's existence. In the light of these emails, the former's stance can already be seen to have softened. Gonzi now denies ever having met Farrugia to discuss oil procurement matters; but acknowledges having met him in connection with other issues. In a sense it was impossible for him to do otherwise, considering that there is photographic evidence for at least one of these, albeit social, meetings. Here again, one can discern hints of a network of communication channels open to prospective bidders for government contracts, which at times includes references to invitations to dinner and trips abroad. One email exchange involves Leonard Callus, then OPM chief of staff. On 17 October 2009, Farrugia informs Leonard Callus that "Horizon Terminals would be inviting the PM and AG [Austin Gatt] to Dubai and possibly for dinner". Significantly, Callus replies: "I'm afraid that PM has parliamentary commitments. However they can always extend the invitation". This is now further confirmed by Gonzi's statement, which recalls how Horizon Terminals had made a presentation at the Castille, together with entrepreneur Beppe Hili and George Farrugia, for a proposal to develop a terminal and breakwater at Benghisa. Given the fuss that the same government had made at revelations that a Labour Party delegation had likewise accepted a business-related invitation to Dubai, it seems strange that OPM would be so amenable to invitations of its own at roughly the same time. But such is the nature of Maltese politics. More importanly, however, the emails clearly confirm that Farrugia was playing part of broker between bidders and government, and was dealing directly with OPM. This consideration alone does not take into account the broader context: i.e, that the same Farrugia was also deeply implicated in a corruption scandal regarding commissions paid on Malta's oil procurement contracts, and that legislation to ward against corruption in such cases (including the asyet phantom Whistleblower's Act) was non-existent. Even if one gives both Gonzi and Gatt the full benefit of the doubt, the same scenario illustrated by those emails also amply illustrates how institutionalised corruption can become almost inevitable, given the State's amenity to fostering unorthodox relations with business interests, and the same State's reluctance to regulate those relationships through legislation. But there is more. In the light of Gonzi's declaration this week, one must also revisit the decision to issue a Presidential pardon to Farrugia, the man at the heart of the scandal, in return for State evidence. This decision had already been questioned by the police even before the latest revelations, on the basis that there was enough evidence to proceed against all parties (including Farrugia) without any need for a pardon. When one also considers that some form of relationship clearly existed between Farrugia and OPM – certainly communication took place between the two sides, concerning at least one potential business deal – one must perforce also question whether it was politically responsible for the Prime Minister to unilaterally award a Presidential Pardon to someone with whom his own office had dealings at the time. All this adds up to a forceful reminder of how dangerous it is for a country to let its procedural standards slide to such an extent that corruption no longer even surprises us. Clearly there is need for far greater transparency at all levels of public procuremeent, and above all the country needs proper independent measures in place to cope with internal scrutiny of government. Legislative tools to achieve these aims have long been discussed. The time has come to implement them without delay.

• Cover