Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/685992
9 maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 1 JUNE 2016 Editorial The untouchables MaltaToday, MediaToday Co. Ltd, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 MANAGING EDITOR: SAVIOUR BALZAN ACTING EDITOR: JURGEN BALZAN Tel: (356) 21 382741-3, 21 382745-6 • Fax: (356) 21 385075 Website: www.maltatoday.com.mt E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt This week, government back- bencher and chair of the econom- ic and financial affairs parliamen- tary committee, Silvio Schembri, claimed that he does not have the authority to probe allegations made against MFSA chairman Joe Bannister. Schembri was responding to a call by independent MP Marlene Farrugia to summon both Ban- nister and Education Minister Bartolo before the commit- tee, following repeated calls by Bartolo for the removal of the MFSA chairman over his offshore interests. Schembri said that the com- mittee had no power to probe or summon such individuals, since its remit was limited to discuss- ing reports on economic matters. "In this day and age Parlia- ment should not be subjected to ultimatums… Parliament is not a boċċi club and matters like this should not be reduced to making requests on Facebook," he said. The only person at law the com- mittee is allowed to summon is the Central Bank governor; and even then, only to report on the European Stability Mechanism. Technically, Schembri may well have a valid point concerning the limitations of the economic and financial affairs parliamentary committee. But this in turn only illustrates the glaring lack of any proper checks and balances within the present parliamentary system. It also exposes a certain incon- sistency in approach between different sectors. Unlike the economic affairs committee, for instance, the Public Affairs Com- mittee does have such powers: even if these are limited to "ex- amine the accounts of statutory authorities, including parastatal organisations, whose accounts are presented to Parliament", and reports compiled by the National Audit Office. However, as attested by the BWSC and oil scandal probes, the committee is toothless in practice. The implication, then, is that there is no authority or in- stitution in the country with the power to investigate even a public office such as the Malta Financial Services authority. This would be worrying at the best of times; at times when the financial services sector is itself are under fire internationally, and serious allegations are lev- elled against its chairman by an incumbent Cabinet minister, it is little short of astonishing. To be fair, there are other enti- ties outside parliament which would, under ordinary circum- stances, be expected to come into play. In the absence of a national prosecution office, the responsi- bility to investigate such matters lands squarely and solely on the doorstep of the Malta Police Force. Again, however, this marks an area where 'theory' and 'practice' quickly part company. The police may be empowered at law to investigate such allegations; but with the force clearly under the direct influence of politicians, this rarely (if ever) happens. In this regard, Malta stands in stark contrast to other west- ern democracies insofar as the country's power structures are concerned. In most developed countries, legislative investigative powers are primarily exercised to provide a check on the executive. But there are exceptions. The US Congress, for instance, has exer- cised broad investigative powers since 1792, starting with an inves- tigation into a military disaster in which 1,500 were slaughtered by Native Americans. This power is usually delegated to committees, and investigations are conducted to gather infor- mation on the need for future legislation, to test the effective- ness of laws already passed, to inquire into the qualifications and performance of members and officials of the other branches… and on rare occasions, to lay the groundwork for impeachment proceedings. Frequently, committees call on outside experts to assist in conducting investigative hearings and to make detailed studies of issues. There are important corollaries to the investigative power wielded by Congress. One is the power to publicise investigations and their results. Most committee hear- ings are open to the public and are widely reported in the mass media. Congressional investigations represent one important tool available to US lawmakers to inform the citizenry and arouse public interest in national is- sues. Congressional committees also have the power to compel testimony from unwilling wit- nesses, and to cite for contempt of Congress witnesses who refuse to testify and for perjury those who give false testimony. This power has not always been exercised in the best interests of justice and democracy; in the 1950s, for instance, it was mis- used to silence and even imprison people suspected of Communist sympathies. But it would be unwise to judge a system only by its misuse. Given Schembri's admission that the Maltese parliament lacks any cor- responding powers of any kind, similar legislation would not only give purpose to the Maltese House of representatives, but it would also add another layer of scrutiny to Maltese democracy as a whole. This should not replace the police or the judiciary; on the contrary, it would complement both services. Until such legislation is enacted, however, we must contend with the inauspicious fact that certain offices and entities – even those entrusted with considerable pow- er, such as the MFSA – remain outside and beyond the reach of Maltese law. Technically, they are 'untouchable'. This is clearly a lacuna that must be addressed with urgency. Public servants, and chairper- sons/officials of public entities and national agencies such as the MFSA, should be made accounta- ble to the people's representatives. So even if Schembri is correct in his assessment, his response to Farrugia's legitimate request remains highly unsatisfactory in any modern EU member state.