Sins of omission and commission

Details that are now emerging from the Public Accounts Committee hearings on the NAO's audit of oil procurement clearly confirm the existence of a complex network of illicit relations between representatives of the oil industry sector and the management of Malta's state-owned energy provider.

George Farrugia, the oil trader who was given a controversial presidential pardon in connection with this case, has revealed a staggering list of 'gifts' given to Enemalta employees each year since 1999. Farrugia also revealed a €2,000 donation to former Nationalist minister Austin Gatt's re-election campaign in 2008, though Gatt still resolutely denies having ever been involved in any discussions with Farrugia over oil procurement.

The situation is messy, to say the least, and with hindsight people are now justifiably questioning whether it was even possible that so much under-the-table activity would pass unnoticed at Enemalta for so long. Given the extent of the corruption now visible - complete with receipts and documentation supplied as evidence - the implications raise uncomfortable questions for the former administration to answer.

Even if it transpires that the government was entirely ignorant of the ongoing state of affairs for a staggering 12 years, this fact alone would still reflect very poorly on its administration of such a sensitive (and traditionally corruption-prone) sector. Nor can one realistically overlook the fact that the same government's foremost protagonists - including former prime minister Lawrence Gonzi, on whose suggestion the presidential pardon was originally awarded - had clearly cultivated some form of relationship with Farrugia, despite their subsequent denials.

Even if its sin was one of omission rather than commission, it remains a very serious blot on the record of a Nationalist administration that had earlier ridden to power precisely on a promise to fight corruption.

But it is not just the former government whose credentials have been tarnished by this scandal. It also transpires from Farrugia's testimony that many lawyers were all along privy to the goings-on, and some of these - not least Manuel Mallia, now Home Affairs Minister - went on to embark on political careers. It is difficult to reconcile the 'shock' registered by the Labour Opposition to revelations of this scandal before the last election, with the fact that one of its foremost candidates was clearly aware of the racket at the time and even before.

One could argue that lawyer-client confidentiality had prevented Mallia from making his information public at the time; but given the enormity of the political implications, one would have expected different behaviour... especially considering how much mileage the Labour Party had derived from this affair.

But what will surely baffle the ordinary man in the street is the way in which both main political parties are now trying to deflect attention from their own blemishes, by highlighting only those parts in which their adversaries are cast in a negative light. Labour now demands explanations for the €2,000 donation to Austin Gatt's campaign, while conveniently ignoring what the revelations also tell us about the involvement - in a non-political capacity, but involvement nonetheless - of one of its own top exponents. The Opposition tried to do the same with the revelation - later amended - that a car was 'donated'  to the Labour Party... while studiously avoiding any discussion of its own responsibilities for all that took place.

It is becoming plain to see that this selective interpretation of data is now hindering the work of parliament in grilling George Farrugia. On Monday, Opposition MP Beppe Fenech Adami seemed more intent with his questioning on determining the source of the original leak to MaltaToday, than in unravelling the actual extent of the scandal itself. As such, he seems unaware that much of the material presented to the committee had already been placed in the public domain as a result of a court case between the Farrugia brothers, before the story even appeared in print.

Even if this were not the case, it is clear from Fenech Adami's approach to the issue that his interest lies chiefly in forging an imaginary link between Mallia and the original leak, even though the substance of what was leaked was already available to anyone who knew where to look. And of course in defending Austin Gatt.

Besides: exactly why the source of the leak should even concern him - when media sources are in any case viewed as sacrosanct and protected at law - is unclear. Surely, as Opposition spokesman on the public accounts committee, his primary focus should be to shed light on the extraordinary disarray in which the country's resources and finances were being mismanaged, under an administration of which himself formed part.

What remains paramount, however, is that justice is now done regarding serious crimes which also translated directly into higher costs being passed onto the consumer. Already the Presidential pardon has clouded matters in this regard: one is hard-pressed to understand why this was even necessary, when the police could have obtained the same information through its own investigations without any political interference.

There has, in fact, been enough political interference in this matter already. Perhaps the parliament's public accounts committee should be reminded that it exists to serve the national interest, not the narrower political interests of its own individual members.