Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/926403
25 maltatoday SUNDAY 14 JANUARY 2018 Editorial MaltaToday, MediaToday Co. Ltd, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 EXECUTIVE EDITOR: MATTHEW VELLA Tel: (356) 21 382741-3, 21 382745-6 • Fax: (356) 21 385075 www.maltatoday.com.mt E-mail: maltatoday@mediatoday.com.mt Malta must mend the fences Quote of the week "Some people say that we are too positive, and others say that we are too negative. I like this because this means we are balanced and act as the voice of reason." – Clyde Puli, Secretary General of the Nationalist Party, appearing on Xtra, 11 January On Friday, the European Parliament's Com- mittee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs released a 36-page report following its fact-finding mission to Malta last November. Among other things, the report indirectly calls for the removal of Minister Konrad Mizzi and the Prime Minister's chief-of-staff Keith Schembri: both of whom were identi- fied as owners of secret offshore companies by the Panama Papers in 2016. It also calls on the European Banking Authority and the European Central Bank to investigate Pilatus Bank; while recommend- ing an array of reforms to Malta's criminal justice system. Perhaps inevitably, media attention has fo- cused more on the calls for resignations, than on the many shortcomings the committee highlighted within our legislative set-up. This has had the regrettable effect of politicising the issue, with Prime Minister Joseph Muscat now adopting a defensive position. Under such circumstances it is highly unlikely that Mizzi and Schembri will be removed (indeed, Muscat has already ruled it out). Paradoxically, the demand itself has made the objective unobtainable for the present. Nor does it help that the MEPs who formed part of this delegation had passed judgment on the case before coming here on a fact-find- ing mission. This inevitably was interpreted as a sign of political prejudice, and was seized on by the Prime Minister as a pretext to ignore the recommendations: "I disagree with the analysis [in the report]," Muscat said. "I still respect it, and I met with the delegation. But I think that most of the things they wrote in the report were basically decided before- hand." This is, however, an unhelpful position to take at this stage. Even if there are definitely signs of prejudice in the EP's approach to Malta, the writing is still on the wall. This report is about more than just the political fortunes of two disgraced public officials: there is also Malta's reputation at stake. More significantly still, many of the problems high- lighted by this report are factual and require urgent attention. It is true, for instance, that the local authori- ties fell at the first hurdle when it came to investigating the damning revelations of the Panama Papers. These should have been investigated, irrespective of whether any facts, evidence or traces of money laundering and corruption existed or not. Evidence of a crime can only be brought to light through investigation; so the Prime Minister's line of defence – i.e., that there is no 'proof' – is in itself illogical. If no proof exists, it may also be because the people entrusted to uncover it did not do their job properly. Failure to investigate was a serious short- coming on the part of the police; and another thing that emerged from the committee's interviews was an apparent contradiction between the submissions of the Attorney General and the Chief Justice. The AG told the committee that he had no executive authority to investigate allegations about money laundering; the Chief Justice said that the Money Laundering Act empow- ered the local authorities to initiate investi- gations 'even without reasonable suspicion' (adding that 'reasonable suspicion became necessary only when it comes to performing an arrest and starting a judicial process). It is unconscionable that the two foremost authorities on Maltese law would adopt such contradictory interpretations of the law they are supposed to enforce. Without entering into the merits of who is right or wrong, there is clearly a level of legal confusion ingrained within the system. The left hand knows not what the right hand is doing... and that can only help wrongdoers to get away with their misdeeds (be they political in nature or otherwise). If indeed there are impediments to the authorities' legal ability to investigate, they should be removed immediately. Likewise, the EP committee is right to highlight politi- cal interference in both the police and the judiciary. For too long, the Malta Police Force has not shown itself as pro-active, and has only sprung into action when a green light is somehow shone from the government of the day. This is unacceptable, regardless of who is in power. One can only agree with the recommendation to revise the system of ap- pointments of the Police Commissioner, and to take steps to prevent political influence in police work. On a separate note, it is also pertinent to observe that, according to the same report, Russian whistleblower Maria Efimova told MEPs that she was not the original source for Daphne Caruana Galizia's Egrant claims. This naturally has no bearing on the other recommendations, but it does open up more questions about a case that has divided public opinion in Malta. With so much contradictory information being distributed, it is high time the magis- terial inquiry into the Egrant allegations is concluded. Naturally one appreciates that such things take time, but an entire country cannot be kept on tenterhooks about such an urgent matter for so long. Lastly, Malta cannot continue to ignore the present antipathy in its regard within the Eu- ropean Parliament, even if the EP's treatment of Malta is sometimes unfair. This is not the time to dig deeper into political trenches. There is a lapse of trust between Malta and the EU; and it must fall to us to try and mend fences.