Why we decided to publish the Vitals inquiry

MaltaToday has taken the decision to publish the Vitals inquiry in its entirety. 

It is not a decision we took lightly but at the end of the day we believe this is no ordinary case and the public has every right to know what the magistrate’s findings are. 

On 5 May, this newspaper had joined the growing chorus of people calling for the inquiry to be made public. We’ve had the Prime Minister, the Opposition leader, the NGO Repubblika (which instigated the magisterial inquiry), former prime minister Joseph Muscat, who stands accused of corruption among other serious crimes, all call for the inquiry to be published. 

The decision whether to publish the findings of a magisterial inquiry rests with the Attorney General. So far, Victoria Buttigieg has resisted these calls. 

Additionally, with the European Parliament and local council elections approaching, people are being asked to make a political judgement on the findings of the inquiry through their vote. The only publicly available information so far is the fact that former senior government figures, including Joseph Muscat, and a number of individuals are being charged with various crimes after the AG and the police took on board the magistrate’s recommendations lock stock and barrel. 

Muscat, his former chief of staff Keith Schembri, and former minister Konrad Mizzi face some of the most serious charges, including corruption, bribery, fraud, money laundering and forming part of a criminal organisation. 

It is already serious enough as it is that these criminal charges have been filed but other than the various stories that have emerged in the media over the past days and years, the public is being asked to pass political judgement without having the full picture. 

In our leader on 5 May we stated that the best way to cut through the fog of political machinations was for the inquiry conclusions to be published so that “everyone can draw their own conclusions on the findings”. 

We stated that “transparency can help inform the public debate better”.  

The Vitals case involves a flagship project of the previous administration that not only failed to get off the ground but is mired in corruption allegations. It involves a project that the civil courts already struck down last year, while describing it a fraudulent deal. 

The case involves a former prime minister, former Cabinet members, several high-ranking public officials, legal and accountancy professionals and several foreign nationals. 

The inquiry paints a grim picture of how millions of euros in public funds intended for the hospitals concession were diverted towards illicit ends that allowed several individuals to profit at the expense of Maltese taxpayers. 

MaltaToday got hold of the 1,200-page inquiry and although our journalists have been working on several stories to synthesise what we believe are the more damning findings, a decision was made to release the full document without redactions for everyone to read. 

We did make the consideration as to whether publication could disrupt ongoing investigations since that is something we did not want to happen. 

Nonetheless, the mere fact that the AG and the police decided to charge by summons all individuals and companies indicated as suspects by the inquiring magistrate suggests the prosecution was not interested in carrying out further investigations. Indeed, none of those charged were called in for questioning much less interrogated under caution. 

Furthermore, a court decision that granted access to the inquiry to people who were charged, means that anybody who will appear in the dock next week and in subsequent sittings will know what the prosecution has on them. 

These two facts alone allay our concerns that full disclosure of the magistrate’s findings could in some way disrupt investigations or alert potential suspects. 

A second consideration was whether we should redact names or personal information that may seem irrelevant to the criminal acts flagged by investigators. We decided not to make that call since it could open up a can of worms. The machinations in this case are so complex, we did not want to put ourselves in a position of having to decide what is relevant and what is not. The magistrate’s findings are thus presented in full. 

We believe taxpayers have a right to receive the full picture so as to make an informed decision. 

We believe taxpayers have a right to know how their money was used and how the promise of a new beginning in the health sector turned out to be one big ploy to enrich the few. 

Taxpayers have a right to know who the politicians and public officials who enabled this to happen are and to what extent they were involved. 

Taxpayers have a right to know how public funds ended up being funnelled to companies that obscured their true owners. 

Taxpayers have a right to know who the lawyers, accountants and other professionals who aided and abetted money laundering were. 

Taxpayers have a right to know the truth.