PN call on BOV to explain Michael Falzon’s early retirement

The Nationalist Party have called on Bank of Valletta to explain why it had paid parliamentary secretary Michael Falzon a handsome €260,000 early retirement package.

“Early retirement packages are usually granted by businesses who want to cut their staff,” shadow economy minister Claudio Grech told a press conference. “Falzon’s knowledge of banking and law is excellent and he certainly wasn’t deadweight for the bank. The logical decision would have been for BOV to grant Falzon unpaid leave for as long as he remains in Cabinet.”

He also questioned why a unique clause was inserted into Falzon’s retirement package that allows him to return to his former post at the bank if he leaves Cabinet. He pointed out that the provision states that Falzon will have to return part of his retirement bonus if he does return to the bank.

“This seems more like a bridge loan than an early retirement package,” Grech said, while warning BOV’s board of directors that they risk damaging the bank’s reputation if they don’t explain their decision to grant Falzon that retirement package.

Opposition MP Kristy Debono argued that the clause that allows Falzon to return to his original post is hindering other people from taking his old job.

“It’s either a termination benefit or it isn’t,” Debono said, while accusing Prime Minister Joseph Muscat of using Bank of Valletta for partisan means and citing a controversial €88 million state guarantee to cover a BOV loan to ElectroGas to build the new gas power station. 

Shadow justice minister Jason Azzopardi reiterated his plea on the government to sack Falzon for his involvement in the controversial expropriation of two quarters of a building in Old Mint Street from businessman Mark Gaffarena.

“Every passing day is further proof of Muscat’s weakness when faced with such blatant abuse that stinks of corruption,” Azzopardi said, pointing out that Falzon had gone on holiday with Gaffarena, that Gaffarena had told Falzon that he wanted the government to expropriate his property, and that Falzon had signed the two expropriation deals.

“Why doesn’t Muscat want to take action against Falzon?” Azzopardi questioned. “His continuous refusal to sack him lends further weight to the hypothesis that Muscat himself could have been involved in this scandal.”