Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/525174
10 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 It is often said that nothing hap- pens by coincidence. This may well be an exaggeration… but when 'coincidences' are as plenti- ful as in the Gaffarena expro- priation case, suspicion becomes inevitable. Reacting to accusations of 'politi- cal involvement' in the expropria- tion deal, parliamentary secre- tary Michael Falzon sought to minimise the issue by arguing that the case was only given attention because of the surname it involves: the name Gaffarena being no stranger to political controversy in this country. A cursory glance at the facts is however enough to dispel this fanciful argument. Even if the sur- name were different, the number of 'coincidences' in an expro- priation deal costing the taxpayer €1.65 million would certainly be enough to warrant investigation. Gaffarena originally took owner- ship of 25% of a property in Old Mint Street, Valletta, in 2007 for €23,294, and then bought another 25% for €139,762 in February 2015. He was compensated €822,500 in cash and lands in January 2015 for the government's expropria- tion of his 25%; and then another €822,500 in cash and lands in April 2015 for the other 25% – two months after its purchase. Whatever the surname, people are justified in questioning wheth- er it was a 'lucky coincidence' that led to the acquisition of a prop- erty so close to it being expropri- ated. To this one can add the fact that many of the parcels of land received as part of the compensa- tion just happen to lie adjacent to other properties already owned by Gaffarena, and which he intends to develop. A government source told this newspaper that only inside information from a highly-placed official inside the Government Property Division could have allowed the exact identification of lands that Marco Gaffarena needed for his own personal and business interests. Moreover, Gaffarena was also seen at the Lands Department offices in the company of a member of Falzon's parliamentary secretariat, at a point before the compensatory land was selected. This on its own would be enough to raise eyebrows, regardless of the identity of the beneficiary of such a generous compensation package. Given all this, it is surprising that the government would have proved so reluctant to give the go- ahead to any investigation at all. Initial reactions by planning sec- retary Falzon were to dismiss calls for scrutiny. It was only a week later, as pressure mounted over the case, that Prime Minister Joseph Muscat finally asked the Internal Auditor Investigation Department to investigate… apparently over- ruling Falzon in the process. This is not the level of commit- ment one expects to transparency and accountability, from a govern- ment which had built its election campaign almost entirely on those two principles. But now that the IAID has been asked to investigate – however belatedly – questions must also be asked about the ap- proach to the inquiry. One question concerns why the police have not (apparently) taken any interest in the case so far. Insider trading is a crime accord- ing to Maltese law. So far there is no direct evidence that this crime was committed; but given the aforementioned coincidences – and above all, claims that insider information was almost certainly made available in this case – the police are in duty-bound to at least investigate such a glaring potential for criminal activity. Such an investigation can and should be undertaken by the police on its own initiative, and in conjunction with any other inde- pendent inquiry. On another level, one must also question the criticism by the Op- position of Muscat's decision to involve the IAID. It is true that the Opposition requested the National Audit Office to investigate; but Muscat is within his rights to choose the IAID instead, which is in any case better equipped to deal with such cases than the Auditor General's office. The IAID is in fact the designat- ed interlocutor of OLAF in Malta, and also the country's Anti-Fraud Co-ordinating Service (AFCOS). This implies that it can conduct joint investigations with OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Office, and also that it wields executive powers which go beyond the remit of the NAO. Moreover the Opposition's hostile reaction can only serve to undermine the legitimacy of this important tool in the country's anti-fraud arsenal. One National- ist MP has even gone as far as to suggest that by appointing the IAID – which is answerable to OPM and Cabinet – Muscat is ef- fectively 'investigating himself '. This is to say the least mislead- ing. For one thing it suggests personal involvement by the Prime Minister in the expropriation deal – for which there is no evidence, and which therefore smacks of a political ploy attempting to indict the entire administration over a decision that could just as easily have been taken at much lower levels. Moreover, the present staff of the IAID have remained unchanged since it was appointed under a Nationalist administration. Yet its expertise or competence was never questioned before the change in government, suggesting that the PN only has faith in such institutions when it is in govern- ment itself. It would be preferable to allow the IAID the space it needs to conduct its investigation, and for the police to also get involved. Otherwise, there is a danger that party politics will distort the en- tire issue, as has so often been the case in the past. Too many coincidences maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 10 JUNE 2015