Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/829524
16 You have in the past admitted that your plan was to spend 10 years in opposition until the par- ty regenerates itself. Is today's PN ready to be in government after only four years in opposi- tion? Yes, it is. To clarify, it wasn't the party's plan to be in opposition for 10 years. A party exists to lead a country, otherwise it can simply dissolve. We started off with a dis- advantage of 36,000 votes and I was the first one to be realistic, and entered into the project thinking it would be a more long term one. Yet, the way things developed, we realised early on that some things are fundamentally wrong in the way Joseph Muscat was leading the Labour government. Therefore, on one hand, we started focusing on what was most important – clean- ing up politics – and on the other, bolstering the party's structure to make it election-ready as soon as possible. But four years ago, there was not only a haemorrhage of votes but also of ideas and more importantly credibility. Why should voters who didn't trust you four years ago trust that you are not the same party of four years ago? Firstly, because the party has a new leader and every leader leaves his own mark. I think after four years, everyone has a better idea of who I am and my worth, and what I stand for. Everyone knows that before setting foot in this arena, my first commitment – I like to call it my first mission in public life – was leading Malta into the EU, and in this case I let nobody down. I did not betray the people. It's ironic that even at the time Joseph Muscat was my opponent. Thus I humbly think that when people see and hear me, they know that I am truthful. This does not mean that I'm perfect but I adapted to the circumstances. I resurrected the party and we readied it for a gen- eral election. It is important to add that we did not waste four years in opposition. While we strongly crit- icised the government, we also put forward our proposals. Never have we had an opposition that released so many proposals, such as the pre-budget document. With time people got the feeling that this was a strong opposition despite where we started from, and full of energy and ideas for the future. Moving to the most crucial issue in this election. Keith Schembri is currently subject of two magisterial inquiries after you presented Magistrate Aaron Bugeja with evidence. However, the elephant in the room re- mains Egrant. Are you convinced that Egrant belongs to the Prime Minister and his wife, and what does this conviction stem from? Let's put Egrant on the side for a minute, and assume it isn't an is- sue. Even without Egrant, there is more than enough reason for Jo- seph Muscat to resign and I'll tell you why. Because he should have acted a year ago and fired Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri, and the fact that he didn't means that he is either involved or that he is certainly as responsible as they are, because it was his responsibility to fire them and he failed to do so. But this is not all, there is evidence which I have seen and present- ed to the magistrate that shows that Keith Schembri took money through corruption, bribes and money laundering, all on the sale of passports. If he made €100,000 on the sale of three passports, God only knows how much he's made with the €320,000,000 sale of En- emalta. And it's not only I coming to this conclusion, it's everyone. The question remains, why did Jo- seph Muscat continue to stand by him, and why did Joseph Muscat himself not resign. Bringing Egrant into the equa- tion, when you consider the way things developed, the suspicion that it belongs to Joseph Muscat was there from the beginning, even considering the fact that when the secret Panama compa- nies were revealed, the company was named straight away but the name of the owner was too impor- tant to be communicated through email. With time, the suspicion continued to grow stronger, even as we observed Joseph Muscat's cavalier attitude, as if it was no big deal. One starts to think: 'This man does not want to fire them [Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi] when it is so obvious that he should fire them. The fact that he doesn't indicates that Egrant belongs to him.' This suspicion was already present in the public's mind from the very beginning. Fast-forward to last month, there are three elements that convince me that these allegations are very serious. Number one: these allega- tions are being made by a physical person, who exists. This person went to court when she didn't have to. She showed up on the court's doorstep not even knowing what to do or who to talk to, saying I am here to give testimony, under oath. That is something we have to give weight to. This person is a former employee of Pilatus Bank, who saw things with her own eyes, who saw the document in the safe and took it out and put it back. So this is something that as Opposi- tion leader I cannot but say: 'Hello, something is not right here.' Does Joseph Muscat expect me to re- main silent? Secondly, an FIAU report was published more or less saying that Pilatus Bank is a money laundering machine. It says that the owner is very close to Keith Schembri, that Keith Schembri took particular personal interest in [Pilatus] get- ting a banking licence. The report corroborates a lot of what the whistle-blower said. Thirdly, on the first day, when Joseph Muscat responded to this shocking revelation, that Egrant belonged to his wife, and thus, to him, he told five lies. How can you deny something and get caught telling five lies? So, the whistle-blower, the FIAU report and Joseph Muscat's five lies tell me that the magistrate cannot find that the case should not continue. Also, the magistrate will not give a definite verdict, but he will only decide whether or not there is enough prima facie evidence for the case to continue. With these three things, there is already enough. This brings me to my last point. If Joseph Muscat were so clean and innocent, why wouldn't he wait for the results of the inquiry before calling the election, as opposed to pulling the plug on the atomic bomb, which is a general election in the shortest amount of time possible. This to me indicates that he tried to rush it as much as pos- sible to try to take advantage of his lead in the opinion polls, in order to try to get away before the mag- istrate made his decision. This means that if Joseph Muscat wins, we will end up in a very unstable situation where our Prime Minis- ter would still be under criminal investigation with the likelihood of the magistrate deciding to pur- sue the case, and Muscat having to resign shortly afterwards. Can you have a worse situation than that? I believe, that just as I am seeing this, the people are seeing it too, and for this reason, the people, like me, understand that on 3 June, the decision is about our future. And that is why it was almost providen- tial that our chosen slogan, that puts people's feelings into words, is 'I choose Malta.' That's what it's all about. However, as you said, the peo- ple want proof that Joseph or Michelle Muscat received mon- ey from Azerbaijan and so on. Do you expect people to rely on the circumstantial evidence so to speak, that you mentioned? In my opinion, the people don't need any more proof. People are looking at the whole picture. When the people see everything, there's enough reason for them to say that Muscat must go as soon as possible. They are aware that he is dragging our name through the mud, there are sectors that are dangling on a thread, like the financial services sector, and with the gaming sector, technol- ogy and construction. Muscat has boasted so much about the con- struction business. But just take a look at what the estate agents said this week, they said there is a big problem with Malta's reputation. Who is going to clear our name? Joseph Muscat, who tarnished it? Or someone else? This week saw allegations be- ing made about the involvement of Russian secret services in the Egrant saga. Some have taken these allegations seriously, and others less seriously, including you. What's your position on Russia? Do you agree with EU sanctions? First of all, as soon as you men- tion this issue, a smile crops up on everyone's face. That in itself shows you the level of ridiculous- ness Joseph Muscat has fallen to. All you have to do is go on social media, as I'm sure you did, to see what is being said to ridicule this. Joseph Muscat cannot be believed, he's being ridiculous, but also pre- sumptuous. He thinks that he is so important that Putin would go out of his way to interfere in our elections. I don't think Putin re- ally cares. But specifically on your questions, my position is that we stand by the decisions made by the EU. There's no question about my commitment on the EU, Malta's place in the EU and to safeguard- ing our position in the EU. I really don't need to emphasise, and so my position on the EU sanctions on Russia is very clear. Your proposals on good gov- ernance include the appoint- ment of a police commissioner by a two-thirds majority in par- liament. Is this enough to safe- guard the independence and in- tegrity of the police force, which today has unfortunately been rendered powerless, or is there the need for a more holistic, rad- ical reform in the police force's structure, as well as in the struc- ture of other institutions? No, it is not enough on its own but it goes a long way to show you what we want to do. We are tak- ing away the power of the prime minister and giving it to parlia- ment. This is the shift in mental- ity, in policy. And so the message is clear, we need someone we can trust, someone who carries out his duties and serves the people, not me. That is an indication of the kind of the autonomy we want Interview By Jurgen Balzan maltatoday, SUNDAY, 28 MAY 2017 I want the highest controls to be on me. If I cannot reach the highest levels then I'm not the right candidate for the job COALITION Choosing Malta Joseph Muscat not only appointed people to serve him, but he obliterated the people's trust and credibility in the institutions GOOD GOVERNANCE