Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/823773
14 is election has been de- scribed as 'unlike any other', in that it is overshadowed by serious corruption allegations reaching all the way up to the Prime Minister. Do you agree with that assessment? What are you expecting to come out from the magisterial inquiry with regard to those allega- tions (namely, Egrant) which remain unproven at this stage? First of all, I would like to say that it is not just a matter of allegations. ere are also a number of facts which have been established. It is a fact that Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri have secret compa- nies in Panama. It is a fact that they tried to hide these com- panies behind a trust in New Zealand. It is a fact that Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri were seeking to open bank accounts for these companies, to deposit in them a million euros a year coming from consultations and other services. It is a fact that these matters were investigated by the FIAU, and there are re- ports recommending criminal proceedings for money laun- dering, at least against Keith Schembri. It is a fact that our Prime Minister has been de- fending these persons for the last year. It is a fact that Joseph Muscat has gone all the way to defend these persons, knowing that they were causing a lot of harm to his government, his party, to himself, to the coun- try... to the extent that we are going to an election a year early. It is no longer a matter of al- legations. ese are facts which, standing alone, are enough to get Joseph Muscat out of poli- tics. With regard to… Is it a fact that Michelle Muscat is the ultimate ben- efi ciary owner of Egrant, though? Because that was the most calamitous allegation, made very dramatically by the Opposition leader on live TV. If true, it would land the Prime Minister in prison. So far, however, it remains un- proven. I was coming to that. ere is a third company by the name of Egrant that was set up at the same time, by the same person, using the same infrastructure in the same country, with all measures taken to make it a secret company. Behind it there is Brian Tonna, who is a con- sultant to the Prime Minister. And though you say there is no evidence... there is a witness. To my knowledge there is a wit- ness who tendered her evidence before the inquiring magistrate; evidence given by a witness is always taken into consideration by any court. I understand, from what is public knowledge, that the witness has produced docu- ments indicating that Michelle Muscat, the wife of the prime minister, is the ultimate benefi - ciary owner of Egrant [...] that is evidence which is admissible in a court of law. So when you say there is no evidence, you are not exactly correct. What is very, very strange in this case is that the Prime Minister is say- ing that he would resign, if it results that he is the owner of this company in Panama. However, as a state of fact, you already have a minister and his chief of staff who do have com- panies in Panama. is is not a matter of opinion: everybody accepts that. How do you rec- oncile this situation? A Prime Minister defending two persons who have a company in Pana- ma; while saying that he himself would resign, if it results he has a company in Panama. It's a matter of credibility as well. He is using diff erent weights and measures. In a very unexplain- able way, Joseph Muscat keeps defending Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri. I am sure the people who are listening ask this question: why does Mus- cat keep defending these two persons, when it is very clear that they are the reason for this meltdown? e reason why we are heading for an election a year early, in the middle of the European Council Presidency, just four years after a massive victory of 36,000 votes? To clarify the earlier ques- tion: no one questions that Konrad Mizzi, Keith Schem- bri and Brian Tonna are owners of secret companies in Panama. My question concerned Egrant. If the document you mention – of which only a transcript has so far been seen – proves to be fake... what would happen to the PN, which threw such weight behind the allegation? e story about the docu- ments coming out, in which Michelle Muscat is indicated, are documents produced by a witness as evidence before a magistrate. I think it's nearly secondary at this stage. Is it...? Give me a second. We have a Prime Minister who defends two persons who have all the misgivings, wrongdoings re- lated to Panama. at alone, in itself, is enough to make Joseph Muscat leave politics. You can- not have a Prime Minister who defends people, when we all know there are reports recom- mending criminal procedures against them with regard to money-laundering, proceeds from crime, and all that... And kickbacks... And kickbacks. When you have a Prime Minister who is defending his chief of staff till the end. It does not make sense. People question this: why does the Prime Minister have to defend Keith Schembri to the end? ere are no two ways about it. Keith Schembri is a person under investigation for criminal acts... All the same, PN leader Simon Busuttil initially de- scribed the magisterial in- quiry as a 'sham'. Yet he went on to submit evidence to the same inquiry. Isn't this a con- tradiction? No, absolutely not. I'd say that the magisterial inquiry is prejudiced because it started many hours after the story broke out. I am sure the inquir- ing magistrate will do his best. I am sure he is competent and honest. However, the inquiry is prejudiced because there were crucial hours until the appoint- ment of the magistrate. It was all public, there for all to see. We had a situation where you had very, very grave accusa- tions being made; and we had a Police Commissioner not going to investigate immediately, and make sure that the evidence is not tampered with, removed or destroyed. It took hours... I am sure you are aware that the initial hours after a crime story pops up are crucial in terms of conservation of evidence, to make sure you arrive at the truth. e magistrate is an hon- est and competent guy, but Jo- seph Muscat spent hours before going to the magistrate. ose hours can be crucial in the de- termination of the truth or not. But the evidence you are now talking about concerns Egrant. at was what was supposedly in the suitcase. Yet we seem to be moving away from that allegation. Let me ask the question bluntly: is the PN worried that there might not be enough evi- dence for that allegation, and is now trying to shift the ter- rain away from Egrant? I beg to diff er, because the story broke out, then what came onto the scene was the Pilatus Bank. It is very evi- dent that this bank serviced a number of, I would say, very shady characters. So you are not correct in saying that the story broke out with regard to Egrant. e story concerned an unknown bank, at least until the story broke out... It is certainly known now... ... Pilatus Bank, and I repeat again: there were crucial hours when investigations could have gone one way. However, we saw them... we could see that people went into Pilatus Bank, spent long hours there, removed what had to be removed... I am sure that those missing hours of investigation could have preju- diced the investigation. All this points towards an institutional breakdown. And there are other indications: the Attorney General came out to say he has no compe- tence to initiate prosecutions. Don't we have an independent prosecutor's offi ce in Malta? is suggests that very basic reforms promised by the PN 30 years ago – the separa- tion of powers – remained unimplemented. How can we therefore expect the same party to implement them now? What we have today is a col- lapse of the institutions, and that is a very serious situa- tion. When you have a Police Commissioner who refuses to investigate criminals, that is indicative of a system that is collapsing. Is it the PN's fault? I would say no. Our problem is that we never thought we would go back to the bad old days. We had 25 years in gov- ernment: we were not perfect, we made our mistakes, but we never had an institutional crisis to this extent... when you have serious allegations and the po- lice literally refuse... REFUSE... to take action against such per- sons. e big challenge, for us, is to make sure any reforms we implement would be foolproof, in the sense that anyone who intends to weaken such institu- tions would not be able to do so. at is our commitment, and I hope that the people will give us their support to get this message through. ere is however an irony in all this. Your name cropped up in connection with anoth- er alleged crime that the po- lice did not investigate to the full. You are fi duciary director of Baltimore Inc, which was briefl y under investigation over transactions involving Capital One... until the case was dropped locally. Isn't this also a case of the police not investigating politicians? I can assure you that after this story cropped up in MaltaTo- day, I underwent a full inves- tigation by a panel of three re- tired judges. ey investigated for four months, and they came out with a report clearly stating that I was in no way involved in any of these allegations. I have been cleared by this report of any involvement in anything that is in any way sinister. But I add to that that in the last four years I have never been spoken to by any police offi cer; I have never been asked to say any- thing about this matter. ese are four years under a Labour government. So you can say: how come nothing happened when you were parliamentary assistant? I tell you, when I was parliamentary assistant, the sto- ry never cropped up. I was nev- er made aware of anything. But what's more important is that, after four years of a Labour government I have never been questioned about it. Because the reality is that I have nothing to answer for. ere is nothing, I emphasise, nothing – and this is proven by the inquiry report – that somehow implicates me in any other matter. You are being defensive about the allegations, but the Interview By Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, SUNDAY, 14 MAY 2017 A post, just two days ago, said that 'I got cancer in my shoulder so I wouldn't be able to clap for Simon Busuttil', or something along those lines. I laugh it off HATE SPEECH An election about fun