Will the whistleblower be heeded?

When the Nationalist government takes the country to elections early next year, it will do so in the knowledge that it failed to deliver on a crucial platform of its electoral mandate.

The Whistleblower's Act was among the main electoral promises made by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi before the last election. Gonzi himself is on record describing this as an "important piece of legislation" which would be a "priority for his government". Evidently, the definition of 'priority' must have changed in the meantime. Five years after it was promised to us with much fanfare during a mass-meeting on the Fosos, government has not only forgotten its commitment to enact this 'important piece of legislation'... but it no longer even talks about it at all.

Indications that Dr Gonzi may be reconsidering his commitment to a Whistleblower's Act came to the forefront in recent weeks, when he surprised many by announcing an 'amnesty' for anyone coming forward with information on the mysterious death of Nicholas Azzopardi in police custody.

This is odd, because by definition, any informant stepping forward with evidence of a 'crime' that allegedly took place at the Police Depot - if it took place at all - would  have to come from within the Police Force itself, and therefore fit the precise description of the term 'whistleblower'. 

But since then another issue has risen to illustrate the government's apparent volte-face on the Whistleblower's Act. On Sunday, chartered accountant Philip Rizzo identified himself (through our newspaper) as the man who blew the whistle on Rita Schembri - a top civil servant who provided private consultancy services through her government office: which ironically turned out to be the same office tasked with investigating audit and financial irregularities.

Rizzo's revelations about Schembri have been in the public domain for well over a week now, and his identity as the whistleblower has been known for three days.

Yet there has been no reaction on the part of the Office of the Prime Minister (under whose aegis Schembri's office falls), other than to state that it is "up to the principal permanent secretary" to decide whether the code of ethics governing the civil service had been breached.

Needless to say, no such evaluation appears to have been carried out since then... or if any has, its findings have been hushed up.

This is clearly not the sort of behaviour one would expect from a government committed to transparency and accountability, and which is committed to protecting the whistleblower.

Moreover, government's reticence on the Rita Schembri revelations stands in sharp contrast with the way other civil servants (at least, those who are not close to the establishment) have been treated when caught up in other, often much more trivial 'conflicts of interest'.

One example that springs to mind is that of Wenzu Mintoff, who found that his position as editor of a party-owned newspaper fell foul of the same ethics code, which also prohibits civil servants from holding 'political positions'. Objections were raised on that occasion; one therefore must question why no such objections have been raised when the ethical breach of the same code happens to be so much more serious.

This brings us to the reason why government cannot afford to ignore Rizzo's revelations any longer. Admittedly there is no direct link between the two cases, but it will surely not have escaped notice that the Rita Schembri at the heart of the whistleblower's claims, was also a member of the board that had investigated (among other cases) the allegations against former EU Commissioner John Dalli, who was made to resign last month over allegations of trading in influence.

Schembri formed part of OLAF, the EU's anti-fraud agency, at the time when she also doubled up as a consultant to a private firm seeking to acquire shares in the Casino di Venezia. Again the two positions are unrelated; but it is not exactly reassuring that the head of Malta's Internal Audit Investigations Unit - also a board member of OLAF - would use of her government office and infrastructure to conduct private business in clear breach of the code regulating her own profession.

Bearing in mind that her association with OLAF - and that, in her role as IAID director, she also 'investigated' such issues as Malta's bluefin tuna exports, subject of much controversy in 2007-2008 - one must seriously question how reliable and credible the results of these and other IAID investigations really were.

Needless to add, this would open a veritable can of worms, in a country where the outcomes of such investigations are traditionally kept under lock and key. But while Gonzi's reluctance to respond to these serious allegations may be understandable from a purely political viewpoint, he nonetheless remains a Prime Minister elected on the specific promise to deliver a Whistleblower's Act, and to adopt a zero tolerance approach to corruption.

He therefore has a duty and a responsibility to ensure that government investigations, such as those carried out by the IAID, are completely above suspicion, and that whistleblowers are given the protection they were promised before the last election.

So far both these obligations have been sidelined. And this can only raise serious questions about government's real commitment to such matters.