Malta’s double life

The events of the past two months have cemented the impression that Malta is a rather schizophrenic country in the way it approaches matters of public responsibility.

It seems as though our national reaction to allegations of impropriety/misconduct among public officials is one which changes depending on the circumstances.

When such allegations arise, what normally happens takes the form of one out of two scenarios: a complete public relations blackout, in which case government and its media appointees simply ignore the case altogether (or even worse, try to put a spin on it so as to distort public perceptions); or else, the wheels of law and order will suddenly spring into action with unaccustomed energy, and all relevant institutions will be mobilized in pursuit of justice.

A few recent examples alone should suffice, though it must be said that the same apparent double standards are visible practically everywhere you look.

The most current example involves allegations of misconduct levelled at Malta's former Commissioner John Dalli, who was made to resign last month over allegations that a former 'henchman' of his had approached a Swedish tobacco company for a bribe, in exchange for access to the Commissioner.

Today's edition reports that John Dalli has spent much of the past two days as a guest at the Floriana Police Depot, and was interrogated over this same allegation for at least 24 hours. Zammit was also interrogated, as was Gayle Kimberley - a lawyer who doubled up as a lobbyist for the tobacco company at the heart of the controversy.

The substance of the allegations against Dalli - and by extension the other two also - is contained in a report by OLAF, the European anti-fraud agency, which was passed on to the Attorney General... who in turn took the decision not to divulge its contents to the public.

This places immediate limits on our knowledge of the actual basis of yesterday's interrogation; but while we do not know what Dalli was asked by the Commissioner of Police, we know that OLAF itself had stopped short of indicting Dalli directly.

The former Commissioner is alleged to have known about the attempted soliciting of a bribe from Swedish Match - the tobacco company at the heart of the allegation - but failed to report it. As for the rest for the allegations, Zammit is understood to have used his contacts with Dalli to try to gain financial advantages from Swedish Match; in return, he claimed that he could arrange a meeting aimed at influencing a possible future legislative proposal on tobacco products... in particular on the EU export ban on snus (produced by the same company).

The OLAF final report was sent to the Commission on 15 October. It found that the Maltese entrepreneur had approached the company using his contacts with Dalli and sought to gain financial advantages in exchange for influence over a possible future legislative proposal on snus. No transaction was concluded between the company and the entrepreneur and no payment was made. The OLAF report did not find any conclusive evidence of the direct participation of Dalli but did consider that he was aware of these events.

The upshot is that local authorities - starting with the office of the Attorney General and culminating with the Police - took the matter very seriously, and reserved for Dalli the treatment one would associate with a prime suspect in a serious crime. This is highly commendable, given the seriousness of the allegations. But one cannot help noting that it stands in sharp contrast with the attitude expressed by the same (or equivalent) authorities with regard to other cases.

One that immediately springs to mind is the BWSC saga of 2010 - admittedly this did not involve European-wide legislation, but it did involve allegations of undue influence peddled with members of government, with a view to influencing a tender worth around EUR 200 million. And just like the OLAF report, there was "unambiguous, circumstantial evidence" that the process had been vitiated... namely, an email which clearly suggested 'tapping higher up the political hierarchy'.

Added to the unexplained changes to the tender specifications (and even the local law on emissions) midway through the adjudication process, one can safely say that the suspicion of illegality was in fact much stronger on that occasion.

But despite damning conclusions by the Auditor-General there was no official investigation by the police. Still less did the Commissioner personally interrogate the suspect/s, as happened in the case of John Dalli.

The recent case of Rita Schembri - a top civil servant who used her government office to conduct private business, also in conjunction with a lucrative tender (in this case to buy the Casino di Venezia in Birgu) - also points towards a discrepancy in our reaction to such cases. Despite 'unambiguous circumstantial' evidence of a breach of the code of ethics, government waited almost a week to respond, and even then, the response was merely to state that it was up to the principal permanent secretary to evaluate whether any such breach had occurred.

Needless to add no action has so far been taken at all in connection with this case, despite the allegations having been in the public domain for over a week.